Sarah Phillipa Rennie & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The claim concerned the defendant's decision, communicated on 18 May 2022, not to implement two Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 recommendations requiring mandatory personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) and associated premises information box entries for high‑rise residential buildings. The claimants challenged that decision by judicial review on multiple public law grounds: failure to take into account mandatory material considerations (including the Inquiry's rationale), breach of procedural legitimate expectation and unfairness in consultation, breach of the public sector equality duty (s.149 Equality Act 2010), and breaches of Articles 2 and 14 ECHR (HRA 1998).

The court held that (i) the Inquiry Chair's safety rationale was a mandatory material consideration but the Secretary of State had given it due regard and was entitled to weigh it against practical, proportionality and cost concerns; (ii) a procedural legitimate expectation to be consulted about any departure from implementing the Phase 1 recommendations existed but was not unlawfully breached because the PEEPs consultation and the later EEIS+ consultation together provided a fair opportunity to comment; (iii) the consultation process complied with the Gunning requirements; and (iv) the public sector equality duty was engaged and was sufficiently discharged by the impact assessments and the decision‑making material. The Article 2 and 14 challenges were rejected on the facts: the executive retained a broad margin of appreciation and the decision not to mandate PEEPs fell within a permissible policy choice in light of other measures and the evidential material.

Background and parties. The claimants were two residents of multi‑occupied residential buildings with mobility impairments and an associated campaigning group. The defendant was the Secretary of State responsible for fire safety regulation. The litigation arose from the Phase 1 Report of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry which recommended mandatory PEEPs and premises information box entries for high‑rise residential buildings. The defendant ran a PEEPs consultation (June–July 2021) and later, after concluding that mandatory PEEPs were not practicable, published a government response and an EEIS+ consultation (18 May 2022) proposing alternative measures focused on buildings with a simultaneous evacuation strategy.

Nature of the claim and relief sought. The claimants sought judicial review relief (declarations and quashing of the decision) and a fair consultation on any departure from the Phase 1 PEEPs recommendations. They alleged failures to have regard to mandatory material considerations, breach of a procedural legitimate expectation to be consulted about any departure, unfair consultation (Gunning rules), breach of the public sector equality duty (s.149 Equality Act 2010), and breaches of Articles 2 and 14 ECHR.

Issues framed by the court. The court listed issues including (i) whether a decision not to implement PEEPs had been made by 18 May 2022; (ii) whether the Inquiry's rationale was a mandatory material consideration and if it had been taken into account; (iii) whether a procedural legitimate expectation to be consulted on any departure had arisen and whether it was breached; (iv) whether the consultations complied with the Gunning principles; (v) whether the PSED was breached; (vi) whether Articles 2 and/or 14 were infringed; and (vii) whether relief should be refused under s.31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981.

Court's reasoning and disposition. The court found a decision not to implement the PEEPs recommendations (in that form) had been reached and publicly communicated. The Inquiry Chair's safety rationale was a mandatory material consideration but the Secretary of State had not ignored it: the decision to reject mandatory PEEPs rested on practical, proportionality and cost problems revealed in the PEEPs consultation and associated work. The legitimate expectation to be consulted on any departure existed but the PEEPs consultation and subsequent EEIS+ consultation provided a fair opportunity to comment; the consultations met the Gunning requirements. The PSED was engaged; the Equality Impact Assessments and other material disclosed a sufficient, coherent and robust consideration of equality effects and of mitigation options to satisfy the statutory duty. On the ECHR claims the court held that, given the breadth of the state's margin of appreciation in social and technical policy and the existence of other legislative and regulatory measures, the decision did not breach Article 2 and that objective justification for differential treatment under Article 14 was established. The claim was dismissed.

The claim is dismissed. The court found that a decision not to implement the PEEPs recommendations (in the form recommended by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry) had been taken and communicated by 18 May 2022. The Inquiry Chair's safety rationale was a mandatory material consideration but was given proper weight alongside practicability, proportionality and cost considerations. The claimants had a legitimate expectation to be consulted on any departure but the consultation exercises sufficed and were not unfair. The public sector equality duty was engaged and complied with in substance. The Article 2 and 14 ECHR challenges failed on the facts because the state retained a broad margin of appreciation and the measures and process adopted provided a lawful framework and objective justification for the policy choice.