R v Boundary Commission for England, Ex parte Foot (Foot, Ex parte, Gateshead Borough Council, Ex parte, R v Boundary Commission for England, Ex parte Gateshead Borough Council)

An administrative inquiry is not rendered unfair merely because the investigating officer expressed an erroneous or ambiguous view of the law. The relevant question is whether the error affected the fair consideration of the objections or proposals. The report must be read as a whole.

A decision-making body receiving such a report must consider it, but is not generally required to dissociate itself expressly from every error in the report. Where the report fully records the competing proposal and recommends against it on its merits, the duty to consider the report is fulfilled.

Judicial review relief should also reflect the procedural stage. An interim recommendation should not be quashed where any injustice can be addressed through a declaration or during the completion of the statutory process.

The appeal arose from an order of the Divisional Court made on 13 May 1982. The appellants, three local authorities, challenged the Boundary Commission’s provisional recommendations for parliamentary constituencies in Tyne & Wear.

They contended that the Assistant Commissioner conducting the local inquiry had misunderstood the statutory position on whether 14 constituencies could be recommended, and that this error might have affected consideration of their counter-proposals. They also argued that the Commission should have explained or disavowed the errors before continuing its review.

The challenged letter was interim. The central issues were whether the inquiry had been unfair, whether the Commission had failed in its duty when considering the report, and what relief, if any, was appropriate.

1. The appeal was dismissed with costs. The application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.
2. The Assistant Commissioner’s report was confused and capable of suggesting a mistaken view that the Commission was legally precluded from recommending 14 constituencies. Even assuming such a misdirection, the report as a whole showed that the 14-constituency proposals had been fully considered. The Assistant Commissioner expressed sympathy for the proposal in principle but rejected the particular proposals on their merits. There was therefore no sufficient basis for concluding that the error affected the result of the inquiry.
3. The Commission’s statutory duty was to consider the Assistant Commissioner’s report. The report recorded the nature and basis of the appellants’ proposals and recommended against them on their merits. The Commission fulfilled that duty. It was under no separate duty to dissociate itself in its interim letter from the errors or apparent errors in the report.
4. The Commission’s letter was merely interim and stated that recommendations would be reappraised before final submission to the Secretary of State. Quashing the letter would have prevented continuation of the general review. Any injustice could, if necessary, be addressed by declaratory relief or during the remaining statutory process.
5. There was no ground for requiring reconsideration of the original proposals. The issue of revised proposals did not arise because none had been submitted.

• Court of Appeal: Appeal from the Divisional Court’s order of 13 May 1982 dismissed with costs; leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused.
• Divisional Court: The appellants’ challenge to the Boundary Commission’s interim decision was unsuccessful.