Verna Wilson & Ors, R (on the application of) v Coventry City Council

A local authority may decide in principle to close a care home before completing individual assessments, provided lawful assessments occur before any resident is moved or their service changed. Article 2 requires reasonable measures to address a real and immediate risk to life, but the threshold is high and the obligation is subject to proportionality. Mixed medical evidence and a fairly presented risk will not establish unlawfulness where reasonable safeguards are planned. A financial error is immaterial where it could not affect the decision.

These rolled-up judicial review applications concerned decisions by Coventry City Council and the London Borough of Havering to close care homes for elderly residents, many with dementia or physical disabilities.

The claimants argued that the decisions were unlawful because relocation might increase mortality, individual assessments should have preceded closure decisions, and the authorities had failed to comply with Article 2 or take material considerations into account. The Havering claim also challenged an alleged VAT error in refurbishment costs.

1. Permission was granted, but both claims were dismissed. Individual assessments did not have to precede a decision in principle to close. They had to occur before an individual’s service was changed or a transfer implemented. Complaints concerning later assessments and destinations were premature.

2. The medical evidence was mixed and methodologically limited. It showed that vulnerable residents might face increased risks after poorly managed relocation, but that careful preparation and continuity of care could reduce those risks. The authorities were entitled to proceed on that basis.

3. Article 2 was capable of applying. Its high threshold required a real and immediate risk to an identified person or persons, together with a failure to take reasonable and proportionate measures. The authorities had fairly informed the decision-makers and planned safeguards before transfers. No breach was established.

4. The alleged VAT error affected only one home and was immaterial against the overall 21-year cost projections. Costs followed the event, and permission to appeal was refused.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. The applications were rolled up for permission and substantive determination pursuant to an order made by Cranston J on 22 August 2008.