Baker, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State

In a compulsory purchase case engaging Articles 8 and 1 of Protocol 1, a public authority must identify the lawful statutory and guidance framework and address proportionality in substance. The prescribed statutory question was whether clearance was the most satisfactory course of action, not whether compulsory purchase was a last resort under guidance directed to a different statutory power. The authority must consider whether the objective could be achieved by less intrusive means and whether the interference strikes a fair balance. Reasons may be sufficient when read with the underlying reports and decision-making materials.

The claimant owned and occupied a bungalow rendered unfit for human habitation by a serious fire. The local authority made a clearance order and, after objection, a compulsory purchase order. Following a public inquiry, the inspector recommended confirmation and the Secretary of State confirmed the order.

The claimant challenged the decision under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, alleging that the wrong guidance had been applied and that compulsory purchase unjustifiably interfered with her Convention rights. The issues were the applicable statutory test and whether the decision was proportionate.

1. Application dismissed. The compulsory purchase order was confirmed. The defendant received costs summarily assessed at £5,000, exclusive of VAT. Permission to appeal was refused.
2. Under Part IX of the Housing Act 1985, the governing statutory question was whether demolition was the most satisfactory course of action under section 289. The last-resort guidance in paragraphs 11 and 12 of Circular 5 of 1993 concerned the different Part II context of acquiring land for housing accommodation. The local authority and inspector were entitled to rely on Circular 17 of 1996.
3. Last-resort considerations could nevertheless remain relevant. The decision also had to satisfy the compelling public interest and proportionality requirements arising under the Human Rights Act and the Convention.
4. Proportionality required consideration of both means and ends. The decision-maker had to ask whether the public objective could be achieved by a less intrusive measure and whether the chosen measure imposed an excessive burden. Relevant matters included the public benefit, the owner’s and occupier’s interests, the feasibility of repair, finance, co-operation and timing.
5. The Secretary of State’s brief human-rights reasoning was not decisive when read in isolation. Read with the inspector’s report and the council’s recorded evaluation of repair, works in default, demolition and rebuilding, the reasons were relevant and sufficient. The inspector was entitled to conclude that compulsory purchase provided greater certainty of clearance and redevelopment.
6. The court’s role was supervisory. It should allow an area of judgment on fact-sensitive proportionality matters, while ensuring that the correct questions were asked and the applicable framework was followed. There was no evidential basis for the Article 14 claim.

This was a first-instance judicial review and statutory appeal in the Administrative Court. The application was dismissed and permission to appeal was refused.