Hallam and Another v. Cheltenham Borough Council and Others

Liability for knowingly aiding unlawful discrimination under section 33(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 requires assistance in doing the particular act made unlawful by the Act. General helpfulness, supplying information or contributing to another person's decision is insufficient unless it assists the commission of that act.

Providing information may amount to aiding where the recipient relies upon it to perform the unlawful act. The question is fact-sensitive and depends upon the nature of the assistance and the correctly identified principal act. Helping another to decide what to do does not, without more, amount to helping that person carry out the decision.

The appellants, who were of Romany gipsy descent, arranged a wedding reception at premises hired from Cheltenham Borough Council. Following inaccurate information and concerns supplied by police officers, the council sought to impose additional conditions. The appellants treated that conduct as repudiatory and held the reception elsewhere.

The County Court upheld claims against the council for breach of contract and unlawful racial discrimination under sections 20 and 21 of the Race Relations Act 1976. It dismissed the claim that two police officers had knowingly aided the discrimination contrary to section 33(1). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants’ appeal in a decision reported at [2000] 1 WLR 966, holding that the requisite knowledge had not been established.

The central issue before the House was whether the officers had aided the council to do the particular act made unlawful by the 1976 Act.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Lord Bingham delivered the leading speech. Lords Browne-Wilkinson, Steyn and Hope expressly agreed with his reasons. Lord Millett agreed with the result and gave supplementary reasons. The police officers had not aided the council to commit the unlawful discriminatory act, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

2. Per Lord Bingham, the principal act had first to be identified correctly. The council’s unlawful act was denying the appellants, because they were gipsies, use of the premises on the terms available to persons who were not gipsies. Sections 20 and 21 of the Race Relations Act 1976 made that less favourable treatment unlawful.

3. Per Lord Bingham, section 33(1) required proof that the officers aided the council to do the unlawful act itself. Their general co-operation with the council and provision of information did not establish that connection. The council could have responded to the information in several lawful ways. The trial judge was therefore entitled to find that the officers were neither parties to nor involved in making the discriminatory decision, and that finding could not properly be disturbed.

4. Per Lord Bingham, supplying information can amount to aiding where another relies upon it in doing an unlawful discriminatory act. The County Court’s conclusion did not establish a rule that information can never constitute aid. Whether sufficient assistance exists is ordinarily a fact-sensitive question, provided that the tribunal directs itself correctly under section 33(1).

5. Lord Millett emphasised that helping the council decide what to do differed from helping it carry out the discriminatory decision. The officers’ information did not assist the cancellation of the reservation or the imposition of discriminatory entry conditions. Aiding requires closer involvement in the principal act than advising, encouraging, inducing, causing or procuring it.

6. Per Lord Bingham, it was unnecessary to decide what knowledge an aider must possess. The House did not approve the Court of Appeal’s guidance on that issue and left it for authoritative determination in a case where it arose on the facts.

1. House of Lords: The appellants’ appeal was dismissed unanimously. The House upheld the conclusion that the police officers had not aided the council to do the unlawful discriminatory act.

2. Court of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed in the decision reported at [2000] 1 WLR 966. The court considered that the officers had aided the council but held that the knowledge required by section 33(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 had not been proved.

3. Bristol County Court: Judge Rutherford upheld the contractual and discrimination claims against the council but dismissed the section 33(1) claims against the police officers. He found that they had not been parties to, or involved in, the council’s discriminatory decision.