"The applicants contend that, in making its determination, the Authority took into account an irrelevant consideration, namely the consideration that “a non-breach decision may attract adverse public scrutiny” or that “a non-breach decision may attract adverse public comment” as set out in the agenda papers for the meetings held on 25 October 2001 and 8 October 2001 respectively. The chairman of the Authority, who made the decision as its delegate, was present at both of those meetings. I was invited to draw an inference that a concern about adverse publicity was taken into account by the Authority simply because Authority staff drew the attention of the members of the Authority to that consideration on two occasions in the course of deliberations. However, there is no reference in the Authority’s reasons to the possibility of adverse public scrutiny or adverse public comment. The reasons run to some twenty-six pages of analysis of the law and consideration of the tobacco advertisement and other material. I do not consider that such an inference is warranted. The only inference that I would draw from the inclusion of the references in the agenda papers is that the matter should be dealt with carefully and with due deliberation. I would not draw the inference that the decision maker had regard to the possibility of adverse public scrutiny or comment as a reason for making the determination of 29 November 2001."