![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Robin Murray & Co, R (on the application of) v The Lord Chancellor [2011] EWHC 1528 (Admin) (16 June 2011) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/1528.html Cite as: [2011] EWHC 1528 (Admin) |
||
[New search]
[Context
]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
COURT
OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE
COURT
Courts of JusticeStrand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE BEATSON
and
MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM
____________________
| THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF ROBIN MURRAY & CO |
Claimant |
|
| - and - |
||
| THE LORD CHANCELLOR |
Defendant |
____________________
Sam Grodzinski QC and Tim Buley (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 25 May 2011
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Beatson
Introduction
court
.
court
buildings throughout England and Wales, in a decision announced on 14 December 2010, the Lord Chancellor decided to close a number of county
courts
and
magistrates
'
courts
. In these proceedings, launched on 8 March 2011, the claimant firm seeks to challenge the decision to close the
Sittingbourne Magistrates
'
Court
. The principal grounds upon which the decision is challenged relate to the way the consultation exercise preceding the decision was carried out. Mr Clegg QC, on behalf of the claimant, also submitted that the Lord Chancellor's decision that the disabled facilities at
Sittingbourne
were worse than those at Medway (one of the
courts
to which
Sittingbourne
work was to be transferred) was perverse and failed to give proper consideration to his duty under section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
Court
. Accordingly we must consider whether to grant permission to pursue the application, and if we do, determine the application on its merits.
magistrates
'
courts
in Wales were filed. The three cases were not listed to be heard together because, while the general policy background is the same, the position of the
courts
concerned and the grounds of challenge differ. We heard the challenge by the Vale of Glamorgan Council to the decision to close the Barry
Magistrates
'
Court
in Cardiff on 8 June, also on a "rolled up" basis. Our judgment in that case ([2011] EWHC 1532 (Admin)) is being handed down at the same time as this judgment. In the third challenge, to the decision to close the Cardigan
Magistrates
'
Court
, permission was refused on the papers, and, although the application was renewed to an oral hearing, it was withdrawn shortly before the hearing.
The background
Courts
are established and maintained under the
Courts
Act 2003. Section 1 places a general duty on the Lord Chancellor:
"To ensure that there is an efficient and effective system to support the carrying on of the business of …magistrates
'
courts
."
"The Lord Chancellor may provide, equip, maintain and manage suchcourt
houses, offices and other accommodation as appear to him appropriate for the purpose of discharging his general duty in relation to the
courts
."
These are therefore broad and general powers. They neither require any consultations before
court
houses are opened or closed, nor do they seek to identify the considerations which the Lord Chancellor must take into account when making such decisions.
courts
and
magistrates courts
has reduced. In the case of
magistrates
'
courts
the reduction was by about a third. Since 2009 successive Governments have sought to reduce the cost of the
Court
Service by rationalising the
court
structure, closing under-utilised
courts
and
courts
with inadequate facilities, and transferring their work elsewhere.
Court
Service ("HMCS") commenced a
Court
Estates Review Programme. The consultation was launched on 13 October 2009 and, on 18 March 2010, prior to the General Election of that year, it was announced that some twenty
magistrates
'
courts
would be closed. This still left 330
magistrates
'
courts
in operation. This was considered to be still too many and the location and number did not reflect the changes in population and transport and communication links over the years. Those considering policy also took account of the adequacy of the facilities for
court
users at individual courthouses.
courts
were identified for potential closure. The Lord Chancellor considered that since public finances were under pressure it was imperative to eliminate waste and reduce costs. It was his view that this could be achieved without compromising the efficiency of the
Courts
' Service, and whilst still ensuring that a
court
would be within reasonable travelling distance of those using the
court
.
The 2010 Consultation
magistrates
'
courts
and 54 of the 219 county
courts
. The specific consultation document with which we are concerned in this case is the Proposal on the Provision of
Court
Services in Kent, Surrey and Sussex. Insofar as it concerned the
magistrates
'
courts
in Kent, it contained a proposal for the closure of
magistrates
'
courts
at
Sittingbourne
and Ashford.
courts
or
courts
in one of the three counties. Forty-nine responses concerned the
Sittingbourne Magistrates
'
Court
. Of those, only three supported the proposal to close that
court
: forty-six opposed it.
magistrates
'
courts
, including the
Sittingbourne Court
, and forty-nine county
courts
. The decisions were announced in Parliament on 14 December 2010.
"HMCS is committed to providing a high qualitycourt
service within a reasonable travelling distance of the communities that use it, while ensuring value for money to the tax payers.
HMCS currently operates out of 530court
houses – 330
magistrates
'
courts
, 219 county
courts
, and 91 Crown
court
centres. However, the number and location of these does not reflect changes in population, work load or transport and communication links over the years since many of them were opened. This has resulted in some
courts
sitting infrequently and hearing too few cases. Some buildings do not provide suitable facilities for those attending or are not fully accessible for disabled
court
users. A number of
magistrates
'
courts
do not have secure facilities for prisoners. Other agencies with whom we work across the justice system are also put under strain by the need to work at a number of different
courts
in the same area, some of which are in close proximity to each other.
When public finances are under pressure, it is vital we eliminate waste and reduce costs. This consultation sets out how we believe we can best meet the justice needs of the communities in each area and invites comments on whether work from thecourts
we propose to close could be moved to nearby
courts
which have sufficient capacity and, in the majority of cases, better facilities. By using these
courts
more efficiently we hope to save public money while also improving the services we provide for
court
users." (page 3)
court
users should not have to make excessively long or difficult journeys, but that this was not the sole or even the primary concern of the proposed changes. It then added this:
"The speed of case, outcome, the quality and efficiency of the service we provide and an environment which commands respect for the justice system and the safety and comfort ofcourt
users, are much more significant to delivery of effective local justice across the communities in England and Wales." (page 4)
court
so that a majority of the public would be within a 60 minute commute of their nearest
court
by public transport; to move towards larger
courts
; and to provide greater flexibility of criminal and civil
courts
with tribunal hearing centres.
The position of the
Sittingbourne Magistrates
'
Court
magistrates
'
courts
in operation in Kent but that their location did not reflect the changes in population, workload or transport and communications since they were originally opened. It was alleged that the service was not efficient and the proposal to close the Sevenoaks and Ashford
courts
was said to enable HMCS to "make better use of the remaining estate and significantly reduce costs both to HMCS and other agencies within the criminal justice system". More specifically, with respect to the
Sittingbourne Magistrates
'
Court
, it was proposed to transfer the work to Medway
Magistrates
'
Court
(which is in Chatham) and Canterbury
Magistrates
'
Court
where there would be sufficient
court
rooms to take the relevant work.
"Sittingbourne
is a converted Victorian building and has three
court
rooms. The building was refurbished over 10 years ago but has a confusing layout of corridors and small ancillary rooms.
Full compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) is unachievable due to the nature of the building.
The standard and facilities of this accommodation now falls short of the minimum requirement for the provision of services expected by our customers and its suitability as acourt
house is no longer viable." (page 11)
Sittingbourne
to Canterbury and Medway respectively, the staffing implications and the cost implications. As to the latter, it was noted (page 12) that the operating cost of the
Sittingbourne court
(excluding staff and non-cash costs) was just in excess of £136,000 in 2009/2010, and that the closure would remove the need to invest in maintenance, saving around £195,000.
The responses to the consultation and the decision
Sittingbourne court
supported the proposal to close that
court
. The response of the Senior Presiding Judge was on a national basis but dealt with Kent, Surrey and Sussex at pages 58 – 61. Its conclusion about the
Sittingbourne court
, at page 60, was that "further work is required before a decision is taken to dispose of this relatively busy
court
, which serves a deprived community".
Sittingbourne
work to two
courts
at Chatham which did not have a dock and the failure to consider travelling time to Chatham and Canterbury from outlying areas, in particular from the Isle of Sheppey, an area in the lowest 5% of socially deprived areas with a high proportion of residents on benefit and without access to private travel. Travel by public transport from the Isle of Sheppey to Chatham could take up to two hours and involve three changes. It is stated that "it is likely that such a journey will increase non appearance and lead to further issue of warrants". It is also stated that the extent of Disability Discrimination Act problems "is not clear" and that it was understood that a defendant was sent to
Sittingbourne
as his wheelchair could not gain access to the cells at Chatham, and that a disabled
magistrate
was transferring to
Sittingbourne
because her wheelchair could not be accommodated at Chatham.
"The policy objective of thecourt
closure programme is to achieve a more efficient use of public resources and better value for money for the taxpayer by increasing
magistrates
' ….
courts
utilisation levels, while at the same time ensuring that access to the
court
system is maintained.
In addition to the 'do-nothing' (base case) option, one other option was outlined in the consultation. The selection of particularmagistrates
' and county
courts
listed for closure under this option was informed by
court
utilisation levels and other factors measuring the cost effectiveness of each
court
. The list of candidate
courts
was then revised to account for local justice, compliance with accessibility, (including travel time to the next nearest
court
) and the standard of
court
facilities." (page 1)
and,
"[T]he impact on travel times by public transport is a key concern as the most disadvantaged in society are likely to travel by public transport…. [In Kent, Surrey and Sussex] 82% … of the population would be within 60 minutes ofmagistrates
' …
courts
… following these closures and representing a fall of 3% … fall for [
magistrates
'
courts
]." (page 10)
Sittingbourne court
"is a converted Victorian building ….refurbished over ten years ago but [with] a confusing layout of corridors and ancillary rooms". "Full compliance with the DDA is unachievable due to the nature of the building" and "the standard and facilities now fall short of the minimum requirement for the provision of services expected by our customers and its suitability as a courthouse is no longer viable".
Sittingbourne
particularly for defendants and
magistrates
using wheelchairs, and that a disabled
magistrate
had transferred there, the EIA stated that "the disabled facilities are no better in
Sittingbourne
than in other courthouses in the area". It stated (at page 14) that DDA work had been carried out at Medway
Magistrates
'
Court
to assist disabled
magistrates
, and arrangements have and can be made for defendants who use wheelchairs to be produced at that
court
. It also referred to the inadequacy of facilities for witnesses at
Sittingbourne
and the availability of disabled parking at Canterbury.
courts
. It stated (page 12) that "the Swale District which encompasses
Sittingbourne
is ranked 116th out of 354 authorities in England based on the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007" and includes areas which are "among the 20% most deprived in England" which "are mainly though not exclusively on the Isle of Sheppey".
Sittingbourne court
"are likely to be around travel" but that those are "unlikely to have a severe impact on the local community" and that the positive impacts that will be derived from the closure of
Sittingbourne
"appear to significantly outweigh the impact of increased travel time for some
court
users".
Sittingbourne
is contained in the Response to Consultation, "Proposal on the provision of
court
services in Kent, Surrey and Sussex". This recognised (page 31) that
court
room utilisation in
Sittingbourne
had been high (82%) and well above the average (76.4%) for
magistrates
'
courts
in Kent. Nevertheless, the conclusion was (page 32) that work could be transferred and there was sufficient capacity in Canterbury and Medway to take the necessary workload.
"Six respondents argued the disabled facilities are better atSittingbourne
than at other
magistrates
'
courts
in Kent, particularly for wheelchair bound defendants and
magistrates
.
The North Kent Bench pointed out that if work is transferred tocourts
five and six at Medway
Magistrates
'
Court
the use will be restricted to non-custody cases as these are not secure
courts
.
In response to the HMCS statement in the consultation document some buildings do not provide suitable facilities for those attendingcourt
. The Central Bench, arguing against closure, said 'the assumptions and assertions made in the consultation document with regard to the design, layout and suitability of the
Sittingbourne court
house for use by all
court
users and in particular those with a disability are not valid.'
However, Victim Support commented that: 'facilities for witnesses atSittingbourne
are unsuitable and that the closure of this
court
and transfer of cases would be beneficial for witnesses.' …."
magistrates
could be accommodated in two
courts
at Medway. It was noted that both Medway and
Sittingbourne
had satisfactory video links, that Medway had two secure
court
rooms, and that interviewing facilities were better at Medway than at
Sittingbourne
.
"A local survey of defendants who attendedSittingbourne Magistrates
'
Court
in June 2010 showed that 20% came from
Sittingbourne
, 22% came from Faversham, 41% came from areas other than Faversham,
Sittingbourne
or Sheppey, and 17% came from Sheppey (all but 2 came from Sheerness).
We need to balance the impact that additional travel might have with the frequency with which most members of the public have to attendcourt
and whether they have access to their own transportation. In July 2010 HMCS carried out research, through a Journey to
Court
Omnibus Survey into usage of
court
services and journey type. It found that 87% had not visited a
court
in the last five years. Of those who had attended
court
in the last five years, 65% used their own transport or were taken by a friend or family member. Only 18% of those surveyed used public transport."
courts
, were also considered. The ultimate conclusion, however, taking into account all of the relevant matters raised in the response was that the
court
should be closed.
Court
Omnibus Survey to which we have referred. The document dealt (see [30]) with additional travel time.
Sittingbourne
work to Maidstone and a number of the witness statements deal with difficulties perceived with this. A woman who lives on the Isle of Sheppey whose 13 year old son is a defendant in criminal proceedings stated it would take some two and three quarter hours to travel from her home to Maidstone by public transport and the journey would involve three trains and a bus. A caseworker at the claimant firm deals with delay in re-listing a Maidstone case which had to be adjourned.
Discussion
magistrates
, and three by retired
magistrates
. Two of the statements are by a solicitor employed by the Crown Prosecution Service who has cerebral palsy and a
magistrate
who has muscular dystrophy. Their statements deal with the facilities available at the
Sittingbourne
and Medway
courts
for those with limited mobility. The remaining two statements are those referred to at [34].
Courts
and Tribunals Service's Area Director for Kent, Surrey and Sussex and the senior officer responsible for the
courts
in Kent; Sean Palmer who, from April 2010 to March 2011 was the lead official in the Ministry of Justice on the
Court
Estate Reform Programme; Mark Veale, the Regional Estates Manager of HM
Courts
and Tribunals Service for the South-East, who gave building advice to the relevant Area Directors about the
courts
which had been short-listed for potential closure; Andrew Hyland, an official in the
Court
Estate Reform Programme; and Malcolm Dodds, the Justices' Clerk for Kent.
(1) Even though the Lord Chancellor was under no express statutory duty to consult, once consultation was undertaken it had to be conducted fairly: see R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex-parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213 and R (Capenhurst and others) v Leicester City Council [2004] EWHC 2124 (Admin) at [44].
(2) The content of the duty of consultation is now well-established. Firstly, consultation must be undertaken at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage. Secondly, sufficient reasons must be provided for particular proposals so as to permit those consulted to give intelligent consideration and make an intelligent response. Thirdly, adequate time must be given to allow responses to be made. Finally, the responses to consultation must be conscientiously taken into account when the ultimate decision is taken: see R v Brent London Borough Council, ex-parte Gunning (1985) 84 LGR 168, approved in the Coughlan case at [108].
(3) As Simon Brown LJ pointed out in R v Devon County Council, ex-parte Baker [1995] 1 All ER 73, 88:
"The precise demands of consultation … vary according to the circumstances … Underlying what is required must be the concept of fairness …"
In that context it is important to emphasise that the question is not whether the consultation exercise might have been improved upon. Sullivan J as he then was put the matter succinctly in R (Greenpeace) v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry [2007] EWHC 311 (Admin) at [63]:
"… The conclusion that a consultation exercise was unlawful on the ground of unfairness will be based on the finding by thecourt
not merely that something went wrong but that something went "clearly and radically" wrong."
(4) As far as the second of the requirements in ex-parte Gunning (enabling intelligent consideration and an intelligent response) is concerned, "it is important that any consultee should be aware of the basis on which a proposal put forward for … consultation has been considered and will thereafter be considered…": per Silber J in the Capenhurst case at [46]. Silber J also stated that this means that the person consulted should be informed or be aware of what criterion would be adopted by the decision-maker and what factors would be considered decisive or of substantial importance by the decision-maker in making his decision at the end of the consultation process.
(5) There is no obligation for a decision maker carrying out a consultation to disclose all material relied upon for his decision: Edwards v Environmental Agency [2006] EWCA Civ 877, at [103]. We discuss the general position in relation to matters that emerge during the consultation later in this judgment: see [46].
Sittingbourne court
is challenged. The first ground alleges that the Lord Chancellor failed to provide adequate information to enable the consultees to give proper responses. The second ground concerns his consideration of disabled facilities at
Sittingbourne
and at Medway. It is submitted this was perverse and failed to give proper consideration to his duty under section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
(A) The Consultation
court
facilities and buildings. Secondly, he ought to have made available two surveys which he relied on when making his decision to close
Sittingbourne
. Thirdly, one of those surveys was a national survey and ought not to have been considered at all when assessing the desirability of retaining the
court
in
Sittingbourne
because the local circumstances made it irrelevant.
(i) Providing information about criteria of assessment.
magistrates
' courtrooms does the
court
have?
court
? Inadequate/Adequate/Good
Inadequate/Adequate/Good
Non-compliant/Partially Compliant/Fully Compliant.
court
would have been assessed. This is supported by the fact, relied upon by Mr Grodzinski QC, that apparently none of the 2,500 consultees who responded to the sixteen consultation papers, including the claimant, had expressed any concern that the criteria for assessing adequacy had not been disclosed or were difficult to discern.
courts
, he arranged a "bench-marking" meeting. That meeting took place on 28 September. At it he and the three lead Area Estate Managers discussed each
court
and make their final assessments. He stated that their assessment of
Sittingbourne
was:
magistrates
' courtrooms does the
court
have? 3
Adequate (only one courtroom can be used for custody cases)
court
?
Adequate (1 secure dock, no van dock, although van in secure area)
Inadequate (no separate entrances, insufficient dedicated rooms,
there is video link in one courtroom)
Partially Compliant (ground floor only).
court
at
Sittingbourne
was inadequate were in play. He gave by way of particular example the fact that the committee had treated as a negative feature the fact that at
Sittingbourne
that there were no separate entrances to the
court
, only one shared entrance. He argued that this was true of virtually all
magistrates
'
courts
in Kent and elsewhere and the consultees ought to have had the chance of making that point.
Courts
Service officials of points which had arisen during the consultation process. For example, Mr Veale stated (first statement, paragraph 5) that, following specific representations which arose from the consultation process, he conducted additional analysis of the buildings at
Sittingbourne
and Medway, "including assessing their accessibility to and suitability for use by people with disabilities" and reported to the Kent, Surrey and Sussex Area Management team headed by Julia Eeles. In that sense those matters were items which arose as the relevant officials within the
Court
Service developed their own understanding in the light of responses received during the ongoing consultation process and fed material to those in the
Court
Service responsible for formulating policy and making decisions.
court
to
court
. It is a perfectly cogent position for the Lord Chancellor to take the view that it is for a consultee to identify those features which he or she considers will be relevant (or irrelevant) when assessing the adequacy of the
court
.
Sittingbourne
had only one entrance as a factor to count against it.
(ii) The two surveys
Sittingbourne Court
in June 2010 and the national Journey to
Court
Omnibus Survey) which were potentially influential in his decision. It is plain from the response document containing the decision (see [31]) that the national survey in particular weighed with the Lord Chancellor when deciding to close the
court
at
Sittingbourne
.
court
and the extent to which they use public transport to do so: see Sean Palmer, statement paragraph 15; Andrew Hyland, statement paragraphs 13 – 14. It was concerned with the overall population rather than those who may be considered to be likely to visit
courts
regularly. It did not lead to a change in the thinking of the Lord Chancellor. Moreover, there would have been little by way of response that a consultee could have made, save perhaps to say, as Mr Clegg submits the consultees in
Sittingbourne
may have wanted to say, that information reflecting the national position is of limited value when the decision to be taken involves the choices to be made when closing a local
court
. However, the lack of any opportunity to make that obvious point did not begin to undermine the relevance of the responses which these consultees did make.
Sittingbourne Court
from the different areas served by that
court
. It did not lead to a change in the thinking of the Lord Chancellor. Rather, it provided objective evidence to support the
Court
Service's position in the Consultation Paper that, while there is a travel impact, it affects only a minority of
court
users.
(iii) The relevance of the national Journey to
Court
Survey
Sittingbourne
and ought to have been ignored. As Mr Grodzinski submitted, this amounts to contending that it ought to have no weight at all. That is not a sustainable argument. It was clearly permissible for the Lord Chancellor, conducting a national consultation exercise, to commission a survey on a national basis. The report provided some material which informed the closure exercise generally, and it was never intended to do more than that. In our judgment, it plainly had some relevance. Thereafter it was for the Lord Chancellor to decide how much weight it should be given. Moreover, the argument that the national survey was irrelevant relied on the fact that the relevant local area, in particular the Isle of Sheppey, was a deprived area. But the IA, the EIA, and the Response to Consultation, show clearly that the Lord Chancellor was aware of and took into account the social conditions in the area: see [22], [25] and [30].
(B) Consideration of disabled facilities at
Sittingbourne
and at Medway and section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
Sittingbourne
for disabled people were better than those at Medway and the statements of some witnesses were to the same effect. But Mr Veale conducted assessments of the facilities for disabled people in May and June 2010 and, as a result of the responses to the consultation, again in October. His assessment was that the facilities at
Sittingbourne
were worse than those at Medway. The EIA undertaken by the
Court
Service, it may be in the light of his assessment, reached the same conclusion.
court
users. However, he resiled from that submission in two stages, suggesting first that there should have been further "engagement" with those who had responded to the Consultation Paper, and then that the "engagement" should have been with the representatives of disability groups.
court
to the section 49 duty. The authorities show that the duty to have "due regard" does not require a particular substantive outcome and the weight to be given to the various factors considered by the public authority is only reviewable if its assessment is Wednesbury unreasonable: R (Brown) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] EWHC 3158 (Admin) at [36] and [82]; R (Baker) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008] EWCA Civ 141 at [31] and [34].
courts
and custody areas rather than to toilets and staff areas on all floors. Moreover, there is a conflict in the evidence, for instance as to the accessibility of
court
6 at Medway to a
magistrate
who uses a wheelchair. In the light of these factors, we have concluded that there is nothing in this point.
Conclusion
court
facilities raise serious concerns amongst the professionals who work at or use a
court
, other
court users, and local residents. The principle of local justice is an important one. We consider that the issues raised by the claimant are important, and deserved ventilation at a substantive judicial review hearing. There has now been such a hearing. We have, however, concluded that, for the reasons we have given, the Lord Chancellor's decision was lawful. Accordingly, while we grant permission, this application must be dismissed.