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

The Court of Appeal considered a challenge to North Somerset Council's decision to cut its youth services budget and addressed two statutory duties: the consultation duty under section 507B(9) of the Education Act 1996 and the public sector equality duty (PSED) under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The court agreed with the judge that the budget proposal (CYPS-26) engaged the local authority's functions under section 507B(1) because it envisaged the possible termination of some existing youth services. However, the court held that the evidence did not show that the council took the focussed steps required by section 507B(9) to ascertain the views of qualifying young persons about the specific proposal. The court also concluded that it was not open to infer that all councillors had read the full equality impact assessments and therefore that the PSED had not been discharged. Despite finding these legal failures, the court refused to grant relief because quashing the decision would be impracticable and detrimental to good administration given delay and the fact that the relevant financial year had expired.

Background and parties

The appellant, Aaron Hunt, a qualifying young person under section 507B of the Education Act 1996, challenged North Somerset Council's decision of 21 February 2012 to reduce its youth services budget for 2012/13 (proposal CYPS-26). He relied on (i) alleged failure to comply with the consultation requirement in section 507B(9) and the related statutory guidance, and (ii) failure to discharge the PSED in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The claim proceeded by judicial review in the Administrative Court before Wyn Williams J ([2012] EWHC 1928 (Admin)), whose decision was the subject of this appeal.

Procedural history

• Wyn Williams J dismissed the judicial review challenge.
• Permission to appeal was initially refused on the papers but was subsequently granted by Toulson LJ on a renewed application, limited to specified grounds concerning section 507B and part of the PSED challenge.
• The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal and decided on 6 November 2013.

Issues for the court

1. Whether the council's decision to implement proposal CYPS-26 was an exercise of functions under section 507B(1) such that the consultation obligations in section 507B(9) applied.
2. Whether the council discharged the PSED under section 149 when members approved the revenue budget on 21 February 2012, given that members were provided with a summary of equality impact assessments (EIAs) but not the full EIAs themselves.
3. If either duty was breached, whether judicial relief (for example, a quashing order) should be granted.

Key facts and reasoning

The court accepted that CYPS-26 envisaged a significant re-modelling of youth services and the potential closure of centres, so it engaged section 507B(1). On the consultation obligation in section 507B(9), the court examined the documentary record of the consultation steps (publicity in the council magazine, two slide-presentation meetings, invitation to submit views, and summaries of EIAs). The court concluded that these measures did not amount to the focussed steps required to ascertain the views of qualifying young persons in relation to the concrete content and likely effects of CYPS-26; notably, there was no reliable evidence of what, if any, views were ascertained and taken into account.

On the PSED, the court analysed whether members had had 'due regard' to equality duties. The papers given to members included a four-page summary of EIAs and information how the full EIAs could be accessed online. The court held that it was not reasonable to infer that every councillor had accessed and read the full EIAs; the summary did not identify disparate impacts on particular protected groups (for example, disabled young people) in the same way the full EIA did, and that omission meant the summary alone may not have been sufficient to discharge the PSED. Because the appellant had not been given permission to challenge the substantive adequacy of the EIAs themselves, the appeal was limited to whether members had read them; the court found they had not.

Remedy and outcome

Although the Court of Appeal found legal shortcomings in relation to both section 507B(9) and the PSED, it exercised its discretion to refuse relief. The court concluded that substantial changes had been implemented, staff made redundant, the financial year had expired and practical and administrative difficulties made quashing the decision inappropriate. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and refused to grant a quashing order or other relief.

Appeal dismissed. The court held that (i) the council's proposal CYPS-26 engaged functions under section 507B(1) because it envisaged potential closures and a reduction of youth provision; (ii) on the factual evidence the council did not discharge the focussed consultation obligation in section 507B(9) because there was no reliable evidence that qualifying young persons' views on the specific proposal were ascertained and taken into account; (iii) the council did not discharge the PSED because it was not open to infer that all members had read the full equality impact assessments and the summary alone omitted material differential impacts; but (iv) notwithstanding these legal failures the court refused relief (such as quashing the decision) as impractical and harmful to good administration given delay and intervening changes implemented during the expired financial year.

Appeal from the Administrative Court (Wyn Williams J) ([2012] EWHC 1928 (Admin)). Permission to appeal initially refused on the papers; renewed permission granted by Toulson LJ limited to grounds concerning section 507B and part of the PSED. Appeal determined by the Court of Appeal, judgment reported [2013] EWCA Civ 1320.