NM, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Islington & Ors

The claimant sought judicial review compelling the defendant local authority (Islington) to carry out an assessment under section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 of his community care needs on release from prison. The court held that the claimant fell within the class of persons who could, in principle, be assessed under section 47, and that the duty to assess is a low-threshold duty directed to present or narrowly foreseeable needs. However, the duty will arise only where there is a sufficiently concrete and likely prospect that the authority may need to provide or arrange services; speculative or highly conditional future possibilities do not suffice.

The judge concluded that, on the facts, the prospect that the claimant would be released and require Islington services was too contingent (in particular because MAPPA transfer and related multi-agency work for release to Islington had not occurred) and so the s.47 assessment duty had not yet crystallised. The claim for mandatory relief was therefore dismissed, although the court gave pragmatic guidance: Islington should participate in MAPPA discussions and provide broad information about likely support, and the Parole Board could, if necessary and proportionately, request a formal s.47 assessment once MAPPA produced more definite indications.

Background and parties: The claimant, detained since 2006 and assessed as having significant learning disabilities, applied for judicial review of Islington’s refusal to carry out a section 47 NHSCCA needs assessment to inform potential parole release and provision of accommodation/support. Northamptonshire County Council and the Parole Board were joined as interested parties because of a dispute about ordinary residence and the Parole Board’s need for information relevant to risk assessment.

Nature of the claim/application: (i) The claimant sought an order compelling Islington to undertake a s.47 assessment and, if appropriate, to decide under s.47(1)(b) whether to provide services (notably accommodation under s.21 NAA) to support his proposed resettlement in Islington on release.

Issues framed by the court: (ii) The primary legal issue was whether a duty to assess had arisen under s.47(1) NHSCCA given the claimant’s current detention and the prospect of release; related issues included the effect of powers under ss.21 and 29 National Assistance Act 1948 to provide services to non-ordinarily-resident persons, the relevance of Ordinary Residence guidance, and the interaction with MAPPA and the Parole Board’s processes.

Court’s reasoning and subsidiary findings: (iii) The court analysed the statutory text and purpose. It accepted that (a) Islington could, in principle, be an authority "for whom [it] may provide or arrange for the provision of community care services" given ss.21 and 29 NAA and relevant Secretary of State approvals; (b) the words "may be in need" in s.47 carry a low threshold and can include persons "about to be in need" where there is a close and reasonably predictable prospect of need (drawing on R(B) v Camden and Penfold); but (c) the phrase is primarily present-tense and Parliament intended the future extension to be narrow to avoid wasteful assessments. Applying that approach, the judge found the link between the Parole Board’s consideration and a likely release into Islington was too speculative because no MAPPA transfer or multi-agency planning relevant to Islington had been undertaken. The court therefore dismissed the claim but directed that Islington should engage in MAPPA to provide broad indications of likely support without a full s.47 assessment, and that the Parole Board could later request a formal s.47 assessment if such a request became necessary and proportionate.

Context and implication: The judgment emphasises a pragmatic interpretation of s.47: local authorities must assess present needs and a narrow class of reasonably predictable imminent needs, but will not be required to conduct full formal assessments for highly speculative future contingencies. The MAPPA and Parole Board processes provide the practical route to produce the information needed to determine whether a formal s.47 obligation has arisen.

The claim for judicial review is dismissed. The court held that although section 47 NHSCCA covers persons who are present or about to be in need, the duty to assess arises only where there is a sufficiently concrete and likely prospect that the local authority may need to provide services; on the facts the link was too speculative because no MAPPA transfer or multi-agency planning for release to Islington had occurred. The court gave guidance that Islington should participate in MAPPA and provide broad information, and that the Parole Board may, if proportionate, request a formal s.47 assessment later.