R (WX) v Northamptonshire County Council

The court reviewed judicial review challenges to executive and budget decisions to reduce library provision in Northamptonshire. Key legal principles applied included the statutory duty under section 7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, the public sector equality duty (section 149 Equality Act 2010), duties in relation to children (section 11 Children Act 2004 and the sufficiency duty under section 5A Childcare Act 2006), and established consultation principles from Gunning/Moseley. The judge held that the Council's decision-making up to 13 February 2018 was lawful but that, after receipt of an auditor's advisory notice (KPMG) and the issuing of a section 114 report, the decision-making process became flawed.

• The flaws identified included failure to conscientiously take the product of consultation into account when moving from Option 1 to Option 2, a failure to direct Cabinet to engage properly with the statutory test under section 7 before agreeing a course of decommissioning, inadequate financial analysis of the interaction between proposed library closures and children’s centre funding (including risk of grant clawback), and an overall breakdown in the decision-making process.
• Permission to pursue judicial review was granted limited to the executive decisions of 27 February and 13 March 2018 and the council budget/head allocation on 28 February 2018. The judge gave a provisional view that the executive decisions should be quashed so the authority can revisit the matters lawfully, though recognising practical financial constraints.

This is a first-instance judicial review of decisions by Northamptonshire County Council to implement a radical reshaping of its library service, including closure or decommissioning of a substantial number of libraries. Two claimants, one bringing a claim on behalf of a young child (WX) and another (Mr Connolly) representing local campaign interests, sought relief challenging Cabinet decisions (27 February and 13 March 2018) and the budget allocation adopted by full Council (28 February 2018).

Nature of the application: applications for judicial review seeking quashing of the executive decisions and the library budget head on the basis of unlawful consultation, failure to comply with the statutory duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service (s.7 Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964), breach of the public sector equality duty (s.149 Equality Act 2010), failures under children-related duties (s.11 Children Act 2004 and s.5A/5D Childcare Act 2006), irrationality and failure to take material considerations into account (notably the interaction with children’s centres and financial consequences).

Issues framed by the court:

• whether the consultation was lawful and its product conscientiously taken into account;
• whether the authority had lawfully assessed compliance with s.7 (comprehensive and efficient library service) and whether any serious procedural or analytical errors arose;
• whether the public sector equality duty had been observed with sufficient rigour;
• whether children’s duties and the effect on children’s centres (including grant clawback risk) had been properly considered and costed;
• whether the overall decision-making after the KPMG advisory notice and section 114 report was irrational or otherwise unlawful.

Court’s reasoning (concise): the court accepted that the Review (September 2017) and the consultation were rational and that the authority could legitimately respond to a severe financial crisis. The Gunning/Moseley consultation principles were applied and found largely satisfied at the consultation stage. The critical legal errors occurred after the auditor’s advisory notice and the section 114 report: the Cabinet moved rapidly to adopt Option 2 without evidence that it had concluded the restructured service met the statutory test in s.7, without conscientiously taking full account of consultation responses and without adequate financial analysis of the consequences for co-located children’s centres (including potential clawback and relocation costs). The PSED/EIA process existed and was iterative, but there was no evident appreciation by decision-makers of the need to apply those duties in reaching the executive decision. The judge concluded that those post-audit decision-making flaws infected the Cabinet decisions (27 February and 13 March) and the related budget head, and therefore permission was granted for judicial review limited to those decisions.

The judgment emphasised it did not decide the merits of any library closure and recognised the acute financial constraints facing the authority; the court invited the parties to seek agreed relief and indicated that the authority could lawfully reach the same outcome provided lawful processes were followed.

Permission to proceed with judicial review was granted limited to the executive decisions of 27 February 2018 and 13 March 2018 and the library budget head set by full Council on 28 February 2018. The court found that decision-making after the KPMG advisory notice and section 114 report was legally flawed: the product of consultation was not conscientiously considered, the Cabinet failed to direct itself to and decide whether the restructured service met the s.7 Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 duty, there was inadequate consideration of children’s centres and associated financial consequences, and the PSED had not been engaged with by decision-makers in the required manner. The judge gave a provisional view that the impugned executive decisions should be quashed to allow lawful reconsideration, while recognising practical financial constraints.