Hallam v. Cheltenham Borough Council and Others

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal by appellants who alleged that two police officers had knowingly aided Cheltenham Borough Council to discriminate unlawfully against them as gipsies in breach of the Race Relations Act 1976. The court identified the unlawful act as the council's denial of the use of its premises on the same terms because of racial or ethnic origin (sections 20 and 21 of the 1976 Act) and held that, on the facts found by the trial judge, the officers' provision of information and general assistance did not amount to aiding the council to carry out that unlawful act within the meaning of section 33(1). The House declined to lay down an authoritative rule on the full content of the knowledge requirement in section 33(1), preferring to leave the issue for resolution in a fact-specific context.

Background and facts:

• Mrs Smith contracted to hire the Pittville Pump Rooms for a wedding reception for about 150 guests. The council, after receiving information from local police expressing concern about possible disorder involving gipsies, unilaterally sought to impose new conditions (notably admission by pre-issued ticket). Mrs Smith rejected those conditions and treated the council's conduct as repudiatory, holding the reception elsewhere.
• Proceedings and claims: the appellants sued the council and three police officers. At trial in Bristol County Court (Judge Rutherford) the claim for breach of contract against the council succeeded and the council was found to have unlawfully discriminated under sections 20 and 21 of the Race Relations Act 1976. The claim under section 33(1) of the 1976 Act against the police officers alleging they knowingly aided the council was dismissed by the trial judge in respect of two officers (a third officer was dismissed from liability).

Procedural posture:

• The Court of Appeal ([2000] 1 WLR 966) upheld the trial judge's dismissal of the claim against the police officers, the main contention there being the extent of the knowledge required by section 33(1).
• The police officers obtained leave to challenge, before the House of Lords, the trial judge's factual finding that they had aided the council; the House heard the appeal and dismissed it.

Issues framed and reasoning:

• What was the act made unlawful by the Race Relations Act 1976? The House identified it as the council's denial of equal use of premises on racial grounds under sections 20 and 21.
• Did the police officers 'aid' the council to do that unlawful act within the meaning of section 33(1)? The court emphasised that liability under section 33(1) requires proof that the aider knowingly aided the other to do the specific unlawful act. On the facts, the officers had supplied information which alerted the council and was generally helpful, but they were not shown to have participated in or assisted the execution of the council's decision; the council could lawfully have responded in various ways to the information. The trial judge's factual conclusion that the officers had not aided the unlawful act was open on the evidence and was not to be disturbed.
• The House expressly left open a definitive exposition of how much knowledge and what form of involvement are required under section 33(1), noting the scarcity of decided cases and preferring to decide that issue when concrete facts require it.

Appeal dismissed. The House held that the unlawful act was the council's refusal to provide facilities on equal terms contrary to sections 20 and 21 of the Race Relations Act 1976, and that on the facts found by the trial judge the police officers did not 'aid' that unlawful act within the meaning of section 33(1); the officers had supplied information but were not involved in or responsible for carrying out the council's discriminatory decision. The court declined to lay down an authoritative rule on the precise scope of the knowledge requirement under section 33(1).

Trial: Bristol County Court (Judge Rutherford) — findings for the plaintiffs against the council on contract and discriminatory treatment; claim against one police officer dismissed at trial. Court of Appeal: [2000] 1 WLR 966 — appeal dismissed. House of Lords: [2001] UKHL 15 — appeal dismissed.