Key Facts
- •Claimants challenged the Home Secretary's decision not to implement Grenfell Tower Inquiry's Phase 1 recommendations on Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs).
- •Claimants included residents with disabilities and a disability action group.
- •The Home Secretary argued the May 2022 communication wasn't a final decision and the claim was premature.
- •The Home Secretary consulted on alternative Emergency Evacuation Information Sharing+ (EEIS+) proposals.
- •The court considered five grounds of challenge, including procedural irregularities, breach of legitimate expectation, unfair consultation, breach of Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), and breach of Articles 2 and 14 ECHR.
- •The PEEPs recommendations aimed to create tailored evacuation plans for disabled residents in high-rise buildings.
- •The government's response highlighted concerns about practicality, proportionality, and cost of implementing PEEPs.
- •The EEIS+ proposals focused on buildings with simultaneous evacuation strategies, offering person-centered risk assessments and information sharing with the Fire and Rescue Service.
- •The court considered various Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) prepared by the government.
Legal Principles
Mandatory Material Considerations
R(Friends of the Earth Ltd and anor) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] UKSC
Procedural Legitimate Expectation
R (Niazi) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA civ 755
Unfair Consultation (Gunning principles)
R v Brent London Borough Council ex parte Gunning [1985] 84 LGR 168
Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)
Equality Act 2010, s.149
Articles 2 and 14 ECHR
European Convention on Human Rights
Senior Courts Act 1981, s.31(2A)
Senior Courts Act 1981
Outcomes
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.