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

Claim dismissed.

The court found the Home Secretary's decision not to implement the PEEPs recommendations, while disappointing, was not unlawful. The government's actions were deemed proportionate and within their margin of appreciation, considering the practicality, cost, and other fire safety measures implemented.

Ground 1 (failure to have regard to mandatory material considerations) failed.

While the PEEPs rationale was a mandatory material consideration, the Home Secretary considered it alongside other factors (practicality, proportionality, cost) in a political judgment.

Ground 2 (breach of legitimate expectation) failed.

The consultation process, though not explicitly highlighting the possibility of abandoning PEEPs, provided sufficient opportunity for comment and response.

Ground 3 (unfair consultation process) failed.

The court found the consultations were sufficiently fair and did not breach the Gunning principles.

Ground 4 (breach of PSED) failed.

The Home Secretary demonstrated due regard to equality implications, despite some concerns about clarity in a specific ministerial statement.

Ground 5 (breach of Articles 2 and 14 ECHR) failed.

The court found the government had in place a sufficient framework to meet its positive obligations under Article 2, and the decision not to implement PEEPs was objectively justified under Article 14, given the significant practical and cost implications.