Attorney General's Discretionary Powers: High Court Confirms Non-Justiciability in Campbell Case

The High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, has delivered a significant judgement in Matthew Campbell, R (on the application of) v His Majesty's Attorney General for England and Wales [2025] EWHC 1653 (Admin), clarifying the justiciability of Attorney General decisions under the Coroners Act 1988.

Case Overview

Matthew Campbell sought to challenge the Attorney General's refusal to grant authority under section 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988, which would have permitted an application to quash a coroner's finding regarding his brother Geoffrey's death during the September 11 attacks. The case centres on fundamental questions of constitutional separation of powers and the scope of judicial review over executive discretion.

Geoffrey Campbell died in the World Trade Center collapse, with an inquest in January 2013 concluding death resulted from aircraft impact by Al-Qaeda militants. Matthew Campbell contested these findings, alleging pre-planted explosives caused the collapse and presenting what he claimed was fresh evidence unavailable during the original proceedings.

The Attorney General's Decision

Following Campbell's application, the Attorney General's office initially refused permission in June 2023, determining that the collapse's cause had been adequately established and that Campbell's claims lacked credibility. Though this refusal was subsequently retracted in September 2023, the final decision remained to deny the application.

Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 empowers the Attorney General to authorise High Court applications where fresh evidence emerges or justice requires a new investigation. This gatekeeping function reflects the office's constitutional role in balancing individual interests against broader public policy considerations.

Justiciability Principles

The High Court examined whether the Attorney General's decision fell within the court's supervisory jurisdiction. Drawing on established precedent from Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers, the court noted that Attorney General decisions concerning public interest functions typically remain beyond judicial review's scope.

The judges emphasised the Attorney General's unique constitutional position as guardian of the public interest, particularly in matters involving complex policy implications. This role requires discretionary decision-making that balances competing interests whilst maintaining independence from both judicial and direct political interference.

Constitutional Considerations

The judgement reinforced that judicial review cannot extend to every governmental decision, particularly where constitutional doctrine establishes clear boundaries. The Attorney General's discretion in public law matters serves as a buffer between individual claims and potentially vexatious litigation that could overwhelm the courts or compromise public policy objectives.

The court distinguished between decisions amenable to judicial scrutiny and those protected by constitutional principle, noting that only allegations of fraud, bad faith, or significant legal misconduct could pierce this protection.

Legal Implications

The High Court's refusal to grant permission for judicial review reaffirms the Attorney General's insulation from routine judicial oversight in public interest cases. This maintains the delicate constitutional balance between accountability and independence that characterises the office's functions.

The judgement clarifies that complex policy decisions involving public interest considerations remain within political rather than judicial accountability frameworks. This distinction preserves both the Attorney General's constitutional role and the courts' proper supervisory function without inappropriate interference in executive discretion.

The decision provides important guidance on the boundaries of judicial review, particularly regarding constitutionally protected functions where separation of powers principles take precedence over individual grievances, however sincerely held.