Hertfordshire County Council & Ors v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government

Whether a meeting is “open to the public” or “held in public” depends on the statutory context and on the meaning of the meeting being described. Where the governing legislation requires participants to gather face-to-face at a designated physical location, public access requires members of the public to be admitted in person to that location. Remote viewing, broadcasting or live-streaming may provide wider access, but does not by itself satisfy the statutory requirement. The phrases must be construed as part of the statutory scheme, including related provisions dealing with public attendance. The conclusion is context-specific and does not determine the meaning of similar phrases in other legislation.

The judgment concerned further submissions following the court’s main judgment in [2021] EWHC 1093 (Admin). The court had held that, under the Local Government Act 1972, a required meeting had to take place at a single specified geographical location, with attendance and presence involving physical participation there.

The remaining issue was whether such a meeting could nevertheless be “open to the public” or “held in public” where the public could access it only remotely. The parties’ submissions addressed the relationship between the statutory concept of a meeting and the requirements concerning public access.

1. Construction of the statutory scheme. The Local Government Act 1972 had to be construed as a whole. The court rejected the suggested approach of treating “place”, “attend” and “present” as merely ancillary to the meaning of “meeting”.
2. Meaning of public access. The phrases “open to the public” and “held in public” are descriptive. Their meaning depends on the subject being described. Since a meeting in this statutory context involves participants gathering face-to-face at a designated physical location, public access requires members of the public to be admitted in person to that place.
3. Related legislation. The provisions concerning public meetings in the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, Part VA of the 1972 Act and section 9G of the Local Government Act 2000, together with regulations 3 and 4 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, addressed the same subject matter and could be considered in pari materia. Section 1(5) of the 1960 Act, referring to a member of the public “attending the meeting”, reinforced the requirement for physical attendance.
4. Remote access. A local authority may broadcast or live-stream meetings, thereby allowing wider public access. That facility does not, by itself, satisfy the requirement that the meeting be open to the public or held in public. The court expressed no view on how many members of the public should be admitted, which remained subject to public-health guidance or legislative intervention.
5. Scope. The conclusions depended on the particular statutory context and did not settle the interpretation of similar phrases in other legislation.

The judgment followed the court’s main judgment in [2021] EWHC 1093 (Admin), which had refused declarations that local-authority meetings could be held remotely after the Flexibility Regulations expired. The present judgment determined the outstanding issue concerning public access to meetings required to take place in person.