JSC, R (on the application of) v Cambridgeshire County Council

Statutory deadlines governing education, health and care needs assessments and plans are hard-edged legal duties. Workforce shortages, high demand and difficulties obtaining an educational psychologist do not excuse non-compliance unless a specified statutory exception applies.

Where the process has subsequently concluded, the court may nevertheless grant declaratory relief in an academic public law claim. The relevant question is whether there is good reason in the public interest to determine the issue, including whether many similar cases exist or are anticipated. A declaration will ordinarily be appropriate where illegality is established and no other relief is suitable, particularly where the breach caused prejudice or reflects systemic unlawful practice.

The claimant, an 11-year-old child with autism and extreme anxiety, sought judicial review of Cambridgeshire County Council’s failure to complete an education, health and care needs assessment and decide whether to issue an education, health and care plan within the statutory periods.

The council eventually completed the assessment and decided not to issue a plan after the claim was lodged. The claimant therefore abandoned mandatory relief but continued to seek a declaration of unlawfulness. The central issues were whether the claim had become academic, whether the claimant could rely on evidence concerning other cases, and whether the council’s delay was excused by the limited statutory exceptions.

1. Permission and procedural compliance. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted. Relief from sanctions was granted for the council’s late evidence and skeleton argument because the claimant was not prejudiced, although the late objection to other material did not justify disadvantaging the claimant.
2. Statutory deadlines. The council acted unlawfully by failing to decide whether to issue an EHC plan within 16 weeks and, where applicable, to finalise the plan within 20 weeks. The obligations under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 were hard-edged duties. Workforce shortages and the limited availability of educational psychologists did not fall within the limited exceptions in regulation 10(4).
3. Declaratory relief. The subsequent decision not to issue an EHC plan did not prevent the court determining the legality of the earlier delay. Applying the approach in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Salem [1999] 1 AC 450, there was good reason in the public interest to decide the issue because the evidence showed a substantial and systematic problem affecting many children.
4. The court followed the approach that a claimant who establishes public law illegality will normally be entitled to a declaration where no other relief is appropriate. The claimant’s prejudice, including educational and psychological consequences, also meant that the declaration was not merely academic. Joinder of other affected children or interested parties was unnecessary.
5. The court interpreted CPR 31.22 as not preventing reliance on documents disclosed for use in the present proceedings. However, correspondence containing private information about other children was excluded because there was no clear evidence of parental or guardian consent.
6. A declaration was made: the council acted unlawfully by failing to complete the claimant’s EHC needs assessment and decide whether to issue an EHC plan within 16 weeks of the request, contrary to regulation 10 of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014. Costs were subject to detailed assessment unless agreed.