Police and Crime Commissioner for the West Midlands, R (on the application of the) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWHC 604 (Admin)
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Police and Crime Commissioner for the West Midlands
22 March 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 367
Court of Appeal
The government tried to give police powers to a mayor without properly consulting the public. A court said the government didn't give enough information about the changes in the consultation, so the government's decision was overturned. The appeals court agreed with the first court.
Key Facts
- •The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) issued an order transferring powers from the Police and Crime Commissioner for the West Midlands (PCC) to the West Midlands Mayor.
- •The PCC challenged the order via judicial review, arguing insufficient information was provided during the statutory consultation.
- •The High Court quashed the Secretary of State's decision due to inadequate consultation information.
- •The Secretary of State appealed, arguing the High Court imposed an incorrect three-stage consultation process and insufficient information was not provided.
- •The PCC cross-appealed, arguing the High Court erred in dismissing certain grounds of challenge and failing to consider the 'Tameside' duty.
Legal Principles
Requirements for lawful consultation: consultation at a formative stage, sufficient reasons for proposals, adequate time for response, and conscientious consideration of responses.
R v Brent London Borough Council ex p Gunning [1985] 84 LGR 168
The consulting body must provide clear information about the proposal and reasons, allowing for an intelligent response.
R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex p Coughlan [1999] EWCA Civ 1871
Meaningful public participation requires information about the draft scheme and realistic alternatives, with reasons for choosing the draft scheme.
R (Moseley) v Haringey London Borough Council [2014] UKSC 56
Test for quashing a consultation: whether the process was so unfair as to be unlawful.
R (Bloomsbury Institute Limited) v Office for Students [2020] EWCA Civ 1074
Decision-makers must take reasonable steps to acquaint themselves with relevant information.
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014
Sections 113(1)(a) and 113(1)(aa) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (the 2009 Act) set out the requirements for the Secretary of State to make an order under section 107F.
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal for the Secretary of State and dismissed the cross-appeal by the PCC.
The consultation failed to provide sufficient information to allow for informed participation, rendering the process unlawful. The judge did not impose an incorrect three-stage consultation process. The grounds for the cross-appeal lacked merit.
Similar Cases
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Eveleigh & Ors
[2023] EWCA Civ 810
HPSPC Limited & Anor, (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education
[2022] EWHC 3159 (Admin)
Better Streets for Kensington and Chelsea & Anor., R (on the application of) v The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
[2023] EWHC 536 (Admin)
Carol Gurajena & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham
[2024] EWHC 1745 (Admin)