Morris, R (on the application of) v Newport City Council

A public authority consulting on a policy must consult while proposals remain genuinely open, provide sufficient reasons for intelligent consideration, allow adequate time, and conscientiously consider responses. Failure to address a material alternative raised in consultation may invalidate the consultation and show that a relevant consideration was ignored.

Reasons for a policy decision must give affected persons a concise indication of why it was made. Formulaic reasons are insufficient where the policy materially affects them.

Newport City Council decided to introduce phased age limits for hackney carriages and private hire vehicles. The claimant, a hackney carriage driver and chairman of the Newport Hackney Drivers’ Association, sought judicial review.

He challenged the consultation, the adequacy of the reasons and evidence, reliance on irrelevant considerations, failure to consider relevant matters, and alleged breaches of the applicable code of conduct and common-law rule against bias.

1. The claim succeeded. The Council’s decision of 18 March 2009 imposing age restrictions was set aside.
2. The consultation requirements required consultation at a formative stage, sufficient reasons and information for intelligent consideration, adequate time, and conscientious consideration of responses. The Council was entitled to consult on a developed proposal and was not required to disclose all evidence underlying its concerns.
3. There was nevertheless a material failure at the final stage. The Council did not address the Association’s principal alternative: that existing six-monthly plating tests, together with more stringent testing or enforcement, could address the safety concerns. The reports referred only to annual MOT testing. This omission also indicated that a relevant consideration had not been taken into account.
4. The reasons in the decision schedule were formulaic and inadequate. They did not state that the policy depended on the insufficiency of existing testing procedures or clearly adopt the reasoning in earlier reports. The evidence before the decision-maker did not establish a link between vehicle age and the test failures relied upon.
5. Environmental considerations were relevant. References to the Ryder Cup were irrelevant, but the evidence did not establish that they materially influenced the final decision. The code and apparent-bias grounds did not independently require quashing, although disclosure of the family relationship would have been prudent.
6. Relief was not refused for delay or non-compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol.