Magness, R (On the Application Of) v Powys County Council

A public authority complies with the public sector equality duty where its decision-makers receive sufficient information about equality impacts, identify relevant disadvantages and needs, and conscientiously address them when making the decision. The court does not substitute its view on the weight to be given to equality considerations.

A consultation is lawful where proposals remain genuinely formative, consultees receive sufficient information and time to respond, and the responses are conscientiously considered. The threshold for unlawfulness is a process so unfair that something has gone clearly and radically wrong.

The claimant sought permission to apply for judicial review of Powys County Council’s decision to co-locate Welshpool Library with Powysland Museum.

She alleged that the Council had failed to comply with the public sector equality duty under Equality Act 2010, section 149, particularly in relation to children. She also alleged that the preceding public consultation was unlawful because the Council had already decided to proceed with co-location and had failed to provide sufficient information, consider responses or consult relevant users.

The court considered whether either ground was arguable.

1. Outcome. The renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review was dismissed. Neither ground was arguable.
2. Equality duty. The decision-makers had before them material addressing library use, the proportion of users under 18, children’s activities, computer provision, pushchair access, available space and possible mitigation. The impact assessment also recorded proposed engagement with experts and further partnership working. On the evidence, it was not reasonably arguable that the decision-makers had failed to have due regard to the duties in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
3. The duty required a proper and conscientious focus on the statutory criteria. The decision-makers had to understand the equality implications and recognise the desirability of achieving equality objectives, but it remained for them to decide what weight those matters should receive alongside other relevant factors.
4. Consultation. Applying the principles in R (Gunning) v Brent London Borough Council, as endorsed in R (Moseley) v LB Haringey, consultation had to occur while proposals remained formative, provide sufficient reasons for intelligent consideration and response, allow adequate time, and ensure that responses were conscientiously taken into account. The question was whether the process was so unfair as to be unlawful, ordinarily requiring something clearly and radically wrong.
5. The consultation document identified alternative possibilities and a preferred option, but did not show that the Council or the decision-makers had closed their minds. The consultation results and main issues were placed before the decision-makers, sufficient information was provided, and schools were among the sectors targeted. The additional consultation arguments were also raised too late to justify permission.