SARAH POLLOCK (R on the application of) v CYSUR: MID AND WEST WALES SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN BOARD

A repeated request for disclosure may give rise to a fresh public-law decision where the authority considers it fully and takes account of new relevant circumstances. In that event, the grounds of challenge arise when the fresh decision is communicated. The court may extend time where the issues are important, the claim has arguable merit, prejudice to good administration is limited, and the public interest favours consideration of the claim. The court may also adopt a rolled-up procedure to resolve permission and threshold issues where the evidence is limited and the parties have an opportunity to address the substantive questions.

The claimant sought judicial review of a decision not to disclose an overview report concerning a serious case review into the death of Child M. CYSUR and Pembrokeshire County Council each contended that the other had made the decision, and both raised delay. The court considered whether CYSUR had made the decision, whether the September 2021 request generated a fresh decision communicated on 6 October 2021, whether the claim was in time or should be permitted out of time, and whether permission should be granted on a rolled-up basis.

1. Decision-maker. On the limited material available, the decision was made by CYSUR’s local operational group. The briefing paper showed that the group accepted responsibility for deciding the request and proposed how that decision should be reached.
2. Fresh decision and time. The September 2021 request was not simply rejected by reference to earlier refusals. CYSUR recognised the previous requests but considered that they did not remove its duty to reconsider the matter in light of new relevant considerations, including increased transparency and current guidance on child practice reviews. This was a fresh decision. The grounds first arose when the decision was communicated on 6 October 2021, so the claim was brought promptly and in time. The principles in Greenpeace and Badmus applied to that fresh decision.
3. Extension of time. Alternatively, time would be extended. Applying the factors identified in Maharaj, the court found the issues important and of public interest, because they concerned the death of a child and whether lessons could be learnt. The claim had arguable grounds, particularly given the reliance on confidentiality alongside recognition of an era of increased transparency. There was little prejudice to good administration, and the circumstances did not create a general floodgates problem.
4. Procedure and order. In the unusual circumstances, the court appropriately determined the identity of the decision-maker and the timing issues at the rolled-up hearing. Permission to bring the claim was granted without limiting the grounds. The parties were directed to file proposed directions within 14 days, with any application to amend the grounds to be addressed thereafter.

This was a first-instance judicial review claim. Permission had initially been considered on the papers, and a rolled-up hearing was directed by His Honour Judge Ambrose on 24 March 2022. The Administrative Court then granted permission and gave directions for the substantive claim.