Hunt, R (on the application of) v North Somerset Council

A local authority’s decision to reduce youth-services funding may engage section 507B(1) of the Education Act 1996 where the proposal carries a prospect of terminating existing services, even if framed as remodelling or transferring provision. On the assumed basis that section 507B(9) applied, it required focused steps to ascertain qualifying young people’s views; publicity or meetings merely explaining a settled proposal were insufficient. For the public sector equality duty, councillors may be presumed to read supplied materials and documents expressly identified as required reading, but not full assessments merely because they are accessible or summarised. Relief remains discretionary, and quashing an implemented budget decision for an expired financial year may be refused where unwinding it would be impractical and detrimental to good administration.

Aaron Hunt, a qualifying young person with learning difficulties, challenged North Somerset Council’s decision to reduce its youth-services budget for 2012/13. He alleged breaches of section 507B of the Education Act 1996 and the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

Wyn Williams J dismissed the judicial review claim in the Administrative Court: [2012] EWHC 1928 (Admin). Permission to appeal was granted on the statutory consultation issue and part of the equality-duty issue. The appeal concerned whether the budget proposal engaged section 507B(9), whether the Council had complied with its consultation and equality obligations, and whether relief should be granted if either obligation had been breached.

The court dismissed the appeal and refused all relief. It accepted the substance of both challenges but concluded that a quashing order would be inappropriate.

1. Section 507B. The proposal was not merely concerned with changing service providers. The evidence entitled the court to find that it carried a prospect of terminating some existing youth services. It was therefore an exercise of the Council’s function under section 507B(1) of the Education Act 1996, even though closure was described as a last resort and transitional funding was proposed.
2. Consultation. The court noted a possible argument that section 507B(9) concerned the assessment of demand generally and did not require fresh consultation before every major decision. That argument had not been advanced, so the court proceeded on the assumption, expressly without deciding, that the proposed reduction engaged the consultation obligation. On that basis, section 507B(9) required focused steps to ascertain qualifying young people’s views on existing provision, the need for additional activities and facilities, and access. General publicity did not explain the proposal sufficiently. Meetings with management committees merely explained what was effectively a settled outcome and did not show that qualifying young people’s views had been sought. There was also no evidence that views had been obtained or taken into account. The Council therefore failed to comply with section 507B(9).
3. Public sector equality duty. The Council members were given only a summary of the equality impact assessments. The summary omitted the possible differential effects on particular groups within the wider class of young people. Members could be presumed to have read materials supplied for the meeting, or additional documents expressly identified as required reading. They could not, however, be presumed to have read full assessments merely because those assessments were accessible online or because one councillor and an objector referred to them. The judge’s inference that all members had read the relevant assessment was therefore unavailable, and the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 was not discharged.
4. Relief. Judicial review relief was discretionary. The relevant financial year had expired, the budget had been implemented, and quashing the decision would risk quashing the wider revenue budget or require an artificial re-taking of historic decisions. Reversal would be impractical and detrimental to good administration. No quashing order, declaration or other relief was granted.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal and refused relief.
• Administrative Court: Wyn Williams J dismissed the judicial review challenge to the Council’s youth-services budget decision: [2012] EWHC 1928 (Admin).