Smeaton, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Department of Transport

A judicial review challenging the legality of the blue badge scheme will not succeed merely because an applicant fails to satisfy the statutory mobility criteria. A system which grants a parking concession subject to qualifying conditions, independent assessment and appeal is not, without more, discriminatory, cruel or unlawful. Qualified and trained independent assessors may lawfully apply those criteria, and their assessment does not improperly override medical opinion where the statutory scheme assigns them that function. A claim brought outside the judicial review time limit and identifying no public law error will be refused.

The claimant challenged the refusal of the London Borough of Harrow to renew his blue badge. His application, based on left knee osteoarthritis, had been assessed by an independent mobility assessor under the statutory scheme and rejected. He sought orders requiring amendment of the regulations and the issue of a badge.

The claim was brought approximately nine months after the refusal. The court considered the legality of the statutory scheme, including alleged discrimination, cruel or degrading treatment, improper use of independent assessors, negligence and unfairness relating to dyslexia. The central issues were whether the regulations were lawful and whether the assessment disclosed any public law error.

1. The claim was refused. It was brought well outside the three-month time limit for judicial review. In any event, the decision-maker had applied the statutory criteria and no identifiable public law error was established.
2. The relevant scheme was contained in the Disabled Person (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000, made under section 21(7) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Regulation 4 required an applicant to fall within a prescribed description. Regulation 4(2)(f) required certification by an independent mobility assessor of a permanent and substantial disability causing inability, or very considerable difficulty, in walking.
3. The regulations did not constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. They established conditions for entitlement to a parking concession, and an assessment system was normal and expected.
4. The use of independent assessors was lawful. Regulation 2.1 required independence, professional qualification, training and relevant expertise, and those requirements were met. There was no abuse of discretion, no improper overruling or de-rating of medical evidence, and no evidence of negligence.
5. The scheme was not inherently discriminatory. Its purpose was to advance equality by assisting disabled people, and it included independent assessment and a right of appeal. Nor did the regulations contain an inherent complication disadvantaging people with dyslexia.
6. The grounds identified when permission was granted did not assist the claimant. The decision had been based on physical, not mental-health, grounds; the National Health Service had no role in the assessment; and local authorities made the badge decision.
7. Permission to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds were either new or failed to identify a specific error of law. The claimant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, summarily assessed at £640.

First-instance judicial review decision. Permission to appeal was refused by the High Court on the grounds that the proposed grounds were new or did not identify a specific error of law.