Daniels, R (on the application of) v Prime Minister & Anor

In deciding whether to appoint additional members to a statutory public inquiry, the minister must take account of matters which the governing legislation makes legally relevant. Other material considerations may also be considered, but their weight is for the decision-maker. The court will not substitute its own assessment unless the decision falls outside the range of rational decisions. Article 2 requires an independent, impartial and effective official investigation, but does not prescribe a particular panel composition where those requirements are satisfied. Reasons may be supplemented by later correspondence where the later explanation is consistent with the original reasons and represents the decision-maker’s actual reasoning. The public sector equality duty requires rigorous consideration of equality implications, but the weight given to those implications remains for the decision-maker.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Prime Minister’s decision not to appoint additional panel members to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry at that stage. The Inquiry was established under the Inquiries Act 2005 and was chaired by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, assisted by assessors.

The claimant argued that a diverse panel was required to maintain public confidence, to satisfy the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the ECHR, and to comply with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. He also challenged the adequacy of the reasons given. Permission had previously been refused on the papers, and the claimant renewed the application orally.

1. Permission refused. The Prime Minister was entitled to conclude that Sir Martin Moore-Bick, assisted by assessors, had the necessary expertise to undertake the Inquiry. Section 8 of the Inquiries Act 2005 did not require a panel with additional members merely to secure diversity, and section 9 required attention to impartiality rather than any particular composition.
2. The wishes of survivors and bereaved families were capable of being material considerations, but the weight given to them was for the Prime Minister. The decision to appoint the chairman without additional panel members was within the range of rational decisions. The court was not entitled to substitute its own view.
3. Article 2 required an independent, impartial and effective official investigation. The Inquiry, conducted by a retired senior judge, satisfied that requirement. Oneryildiz v Turkey [2005] 41 EHRR 20 did not establish a right to any particular composition of the investigating body. R(Mousa) v Secretary of State for Defence [2011] EWCA Civ 1334 concerned independence and perception of bias, not diversity.
4. The reasons in the Prime Minister’s letter were brief but adequate. The fuller explanation in later correspondence was consistent with the original reasons and represented the original reasoning, rather than impermissible ex post facto rationalisation. The circumstances did not require a detailed response to every representation.
5. The Prime Minister had rigorously considered the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. She considered the affected community’s protected characteristics, the possible value of diversity and community engagement, the assistance available from assessors, and the risk of delay. The weight given to those matters was for her.
6. The court expressed no view on whether additional panel members might be required during Phase 2 of the Inquiry, when different considerations could arise.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): permission to seek judicial review was refused on the papers by Mr Justice Choudhury. The renewed oral application was refused by Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Edis.