Smieja, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Bexley

A Wednesbury challenge requires more than showing that a decision is strongly opposed by the evidence or that another conclusion would have been preferable. The question is whether the decision-maker had some evidential and rational basis for its conclusion and whether the conclusion was one that a reasonable specialist body could reach. A specialist panel need not address every expert submission in detail if it explains the substance of its reasoning. In assessing a local placement, it may reasonably assume that the person concerned will remain within the local area unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

Lara Smieja, who had autism and learning difficulties, challenged a decision by London Borough of Bexley concerning her post-school placement. The local authority preferred a local three-day programme with personal assistant support over a residential specialist horse-care course. The Administrative Court rejected the Wednesbury irrationality challenge, holding that the panel had a rational explanation supported by some evidence.

The renewed application for permission to appeal concerned only whether that conclusion was legally sustainable in light of the substantial evidence favouring the residential placement.

1. Permission refused. The court held that the challenge could not succeed merely because the panel’s conclusion was strongly against the weight of the evidence. The question was whether the decision was irrational, in the exceptional sense that no reasonable specialist panel could have reached it.
2. The panel had identified a substantial concern that Lara might not generalise or transfer skills learned at the residential centre to another environment. It considered that a local placement would better promote the development and transfer of those skills. There was evidence supporting that concern, together with explanations in the decision letters and in Wendy Vincent’s witness statement.
3. The court could not determine whether the panel’s analysis was correct. Its task was limited to deciding whether the panel had considered the relevant matters and reached a conclusion with a sufficient and sustainable basis. The presence of powerful contrary evidence did not make the decision irrational.
4. A specialist panel was not required to answer every point made by every expert or provide copious reasons for accepting or rejecting each report. Substantive reasons were sufficient where they disclosed the central basis of the decision.
5. The authority was entitled, absent clear contrary evidence, to assume that Lara would remain in Bexley. That assumption was not unreasonable, and the possibility that her local environment might later change did not necessarily undermine the panel’s reasoning.

• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Judicial review dismissed; the local authority’s decision was held not to be Wednesbury unreasonable.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Renewed application for permission to appeal refused.