A, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lambeth

A pathway plan for a looked-after young person must be prepared by the local authority in accordance with the statutory scheme. A personal adviser may participate, take the initiative and play an active role, but may not alone undertake the assessment, prepare the primary plan or conduct its review. The court must examine the substance of a plan only after compliance with essential procedural requirements. Where a plan has been unlawfully prepared, the appropriate course is to require a lawfully prepared replacement plan.

The claimant, a former relevant child under the leaving-care scheme, sought judicial review of the London Borough of Lambeth’s assessment and pathway planning. Earlier proceedings resulted in an order requiring a further plan addressing accommodation and associated support. Lambeth produced a document dated 15 June 2010, prepared by the claimant’s personal adviser.

The central issue was whether that document was a primary pathway plan or a review, and whether a personal adviser could lawfully prepare it alone. The claimant also challenged the substance of the assessment and plan.

1. Unlawful plan. The document dated 15 June 2010 was, in substance, a primary pathway plan rather than a review. Its description and comprehensive contents supported that conclusion, although nomenclature was not decisive; the court had to examine substance: R(J) v Caerphilly CBC [200] EWHC 586 (Admin); [2005] 2 FLR 860.
2. Role of personal adviser. Under the statutory scheme, the local authority bears the duty to assess and prepare the pathway plan. Regulation 12 permits the personal adviser to participate, but not to discharge those functions alone. The personal adviser’s intermediary and negotiating role would be compromised if he or she were also the sole author of the authority’s plan. The court adopted the reasoning in R(J) v Caerphilly CBC [200] EWHC 586 (Admin).
3. Reviews. The same principle applies to a review. A personal adviser may initiate or play an active part in the review, but cannot alone carry it out. The guidance had to be read consistently with the statutory language and purpose.
4. Disposition. The June plan was unlawful and the court declined to examine its substantive adequacy. The March plan had been superseded. Lambeth was required to produce a plan lawfully prepared in accordance with the legislation, with an expedited timetable to be proposed. The substantive challenge could thereafter be determined, if necessary, on written submissions.