The Supreme Court has on 29 October 2014 decided R (Moseley, in substitution of Stirling deceased) v Haringey LBC [2014] UKSC 56 on appeal from [2013] EWCA Civ 116.  The subject matter is the authority’s Council Tax Reduction Scheme (“CTRS”) and the Consultation Document (“the CD”) in relation to the draft CTRS.  The CD explained the reduction in Central Government funding and stated that this means that the introduction of a local CTRS in Haringey will “directly affect the assistance provided” to everyone below pensionable age who had been receiving Council Tax Benefit.  The CD also contained a Questionnaire asking how the reduction in relief should be distributed among claimants.  Following the consultation exercise the authority decided to adopt a CTRS under which the level of council tax relief was reduced for 2013-2014 by 19.8% from 2012-2013 level for all claimants other than pensioners and the disabled.

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the claimant’s appeal.  They declared that the consultation exercise was unlawful.  However, they declined to order the authority to undertake a fresh consultation exercise. This would have been disproportionate in the circumstances.

The Supreme Court (paragraphs 25, 35 and 44) gave its endorsement to the four Gunning/Coughlan criteria of a fair consultation.

At paragraph 26 Lord Wilson added that two further general points emerge from the authorities: (1) the degree of specificity with which, in fairness, the public authority should conduct its consultation exercise may be influenced by the identity of those whom it is consulting; and (2) the demands of fairness are likely to be somewhat higher when an authority contemplates depriving someone of an existing benefit or advantage than when the claimant is a bare applicant for a future benefit.

The critical passages are at paragraphs 27/28 and 39-41:-

“27.       Sometimes, particularly when statute does not limit the subject of the requisite consultation to the preferred option, fairness will require that interested persons be consulted not only upon the preferred option but also upon arguable yet discarded alternative options. …

28.        But, even when the subject of the requisite consultation is limited to the preferred option, fairness may nevertheless require passing reference to be made to arguable yet discarded alternative options. …”

“39.       … Meaningful public participation in this particular decision-making process, in a context with which the general public cannot be expected to be familiar, requires that the consultees should be provided not only with information about the draft scheme, but also with an outline of the realistic alternatives, and an indication of the main reasons for the authority’s adoption of the draft scheme. …

40.        That is not to say that a duty to consult invariably requires the provision of information about options which have been rejected.  The matter may be made clear, one way or the other, by the terms of the relevant statutory provisions, … To the extent that the issue is left open by the relevant statutory provisions, the question will generally be whether, in the particular context, the provision of such information is necessary in order for the consultees to express meaningful views on the proposal. …

41.        Nor does a requirement to provide information about other options mean that there must be a detailed discussion of the alternatives or of the reasons for their rejection.  The consultation required in the present context is in respect of the draft scheme, not the rejected alternatives; and it is important, not least in the context of a public consultation exercise, that the consultation documents should be clear and understandable, and therefore should not be unduly complex or lengthy.  Never-theless, enough must be said about realistic alternatives, and the reasons for the local authority’s preferred choice, to enable the consultees to make an intelligent response in respect of the scheme on which their views are sought.”

Applying the law to the facts, the Supreme Court held that fairness demanded that the Consultation Document should briefly refer to alternative methods of absorbing the shortfall in government funding and to the reasons why the authority had concluded that they were unacceptable.  The consultation was premised on the assumption that the shortfall would be met by a reduction in council tax relief.  No other option was presented.  Neither was it reasonably obvious to those consulted what other options there may have been and the reasons why such options had been discarded.  Indeed, only an infinitesimal number of responses to the consultation alluded to other ways of meeting the shortfall.  Therefore, the consultation exercise was unfair and unlawful.  (However, it was not unlawful that the authority had failed to consult on the possible adoption of a Transitional Grant Scheme announced by Central Government only 5 weeks before the completion of the Consultation.

The purpose of this particular statutory duty was to ensure public participation in the local authority’s decision-making process.  Meaningful participation in these circumstances required that those consulted be provided with an outline of the realistic alternatives.  In the absence of specific statutory provision, reference to alternative options will be required where this is necessary in order for the consultees to express meaningful views on the proposals.

In summary, the Consultation Document presented the proposed reduction in council tax support as if it were the inevitable consequence of the Government’s funding cuts, and thereby disguised the choice made by the authority itself. It misleadingly implied that there were no possible alternatives to that choice.  In reality, therefore, there was no consultation on the fundamental basis of the CTRS.

In R (Sumpter) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] EWHC 2434 (Admin) Hickinbottom J summarised, at para 94, the general law in relation to a consultation process as follows:-

“i) Whether required by statute or (as in this case) voluntary, if performed, consultation must be carried out properly (R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213 at paragraph 108).

ii) Key features of a proper consultation process were set out in R v Brent London Borough Council ex parte Gunning (1985) 84 LGR 168 at page 189 per Hodgson J (as approved by the Court of Appeal in Coughlan at paragraph 108), namely:

(a) consultation is undertaken at a time when the relevant proposal is still at a formative stage;
(b) adequate information is provided to consultees to enable them properly to respond to the consultation exercise;
(c) consultees are afforded adequate time in which to respond; and
(d) the decision-maker gives conscientious consideration to consultees’ responses.

iii) However, fairness is the touchstone: for consultation to be lawful, it must be fair.  That is the test.  Although consideration of the particular facets of fairness identified in Coughlan may assist, whether the consultation process is fair is a fact-sensitive question that depends upon all the circumstances of the particular case looked at as a whole, and without drawing artificial distinctions between particular stages of the whole process  (R (Medway Council) v Secretary of State for Transport [2002] EWHC 2516 (Admin) at [28] per Maurice Kay J (as he then was), R (J L and A T Baird) v Environment Agency [2011] EWHC 939 (Admin) at [52] per Sullivan LJ, and R (Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospital NHS Foundation Trust) v Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts [2012] EWCA Civ 472 at [9] per Arden LJ; see also R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61 at [64]-[71] per Lord Reed JSC).

iv) It is a matter for the court to decide whether a fair procedure was followed: its function is not merely to review the reasonableness of the decision-maker’s judgment of what fairness required (Osborn at [65] per Lord Reed).

v) If it is alleged that a consultation process is unfair, it is for the claimant to show that the unfairness was such as to render the consultation process unlawful.  Especially with the benefit of hindsight, it may well be possible to identify how a consultation process might have been improved; but, even if it was less than ideal, it will become unlawful only if what has occurred makes it unfair as a matter of law.  That is a substantial hurdle: in Baird, Sullivan LJ said that “in reality a conclusion that a consultation process has been so unfair as to be unlawful is likely to be based on a factual finding that something has gone clearly and radically wrong (Baird at [51]; see also Royal Brompton at [13] per Arden LJ).

vi) The consultation documents must be intelligibly clear to the general body of interested persons, and present the issues fairly and in a way that facilitates an intelligent and effective response (R (Breckland District Council) v The Boundary Commission [2009] EWCA Civ 239 at [46] per Sir Anthony May P, and Royal Brompton at [8]-[14] per Arden LJ).

vii) To be fair and proper, consultation must be performed by the decision-maker with an open mind.  However, an open mind is not the same thing as an empty mind (R (Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust) v Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts [2011] EWHC 2986 (Admin) at [16] per Owen J, adopting a phrase used in the course of argument by Neil Garnham QC).  Therefore, whilst a decision-maker cannot have a predetermined option, such that consultation is a sham, he may have a preferred option; but he must disclose that to potential consultees “so as to better focus their responses” (R (Sardar) v Watford Borough Council [2006] EWCA 1590 (Admin) at [29] per Wilkie J).  A consultation may properly be focused upon a limited number of options or even a single proposal.

viii) The process must be considered as a whole; and, therefore, where a decision-maker is in fact prepared to accept and consider further representations after the close of the formal consultation, then those subsequent events can be taken into account in assessing whether the process was fair; although it may be appropriate to give those subsequent events less weight, because (eg) the opportunity to make representations was not given such widespread publicity as was given during the formal process (Baird at [52]).

ix) In cases where there has been a consultation exercise, and it is decided to have a further consultation, the fairness of that further exercise must be considered in the context of the earlier and fuller consultation process.  In such cases, it may not be unfair to any interested party for the further consultation exercise to be more limited, whether as to the identity of consultees, or the content and duration of the consultation (R (Milton Keynes Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWCA Civ 1575, especially at [36]-[38]).

x) Proper consultation is an important part of the decision-making process.  The purposes of requiring fairness in procedural matters such as consultation include to ensure high standards of decision-making by public bodies, to enable parties interested in the subject matter to identify and draw to the attention of the decision-maker relevant factors which he may have overlooked to enable responses that will best facilitate a sound decision, and to avoid the sense of injustice which a person affected by a decision may otherwise feel if not given a proper opportunity to have their views known and taken into account (Osborn at [67]-[70]) per Lord Reed, and Baird at [41] per Sullivan LJ).  However, the obligations imposed upon a decision-maker in the course of consultation must not be unreasonably onerous, otherwise effective decision-making might be impaired and decision-makers might become reluctant to engage in voluntary consultation where (as in this case) there is no statutory duty to consult.”

At paragraph 117 the Judge added:-

“… R (Medway Council) v Secretary of State for Transport [2002] EWHC 2516 (Admin) … R (Montpeliers and Trevors Association) v City of Westminster [2005] EWHC 16 (Admin) … show that, although a decision-maker may formulate options on which to consult and restrict the consultation to that option or those options, in certain circumstances it may be unfair and unlawful to exclude an option from a consultation exercise.  They make clear that a decision-maker, as long as he keeps an open mind, might have a very much preferred option: what he cannot do is, for practical purposes, exclude a legitimate option.”

As regards the PSED, the Judge said, at para 137:-

 “The duty requires a “conscious directing of the mind to the obligations” (R (Meany) v Harlow District Council [2009] EWHC 559 (Admin) per Davis J (as he then was)), “due regard” being the appropriate regard in all the circumstances.  In R (Hurley) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2012] EWHC 201 (Admin) at [78], Elias LJ illuminatingly explained:

“The concept of ‘due regard’ requires the court to ensure there has been a proper and conscientious focus on the statutory criteria, but if that is done, the court cannot interfere with the decision simply because it would have given greater weight to the equality implications of the decision than did the decision-maker.  In short, the decision-maker must be clear precisely what the equality implications are when he puts them in the balance, and he must recognise the desirability of achieving them, but ultimately it is for him to decide what weight they should be given in the light of all relevant factors.”

In R (Bailey) v London Borough of Brent Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1586 at [102], Davis LJ emphasised the importance of not interpreting the duty in such a way as to make decision-making unduly and unreasonably onerous.”

In IM Properties Development Ltd v Lichfield District Council [2014] EWHC  440 (Admin) Patterson J held that an e-mail sent by a committee chairman to members of the same political party telling them to vote in a particular manner fell within Section 25(2) of the Localism Act 2011 and was not to be taken as a predetermination.  She found, at para 86, that the tenor of the e-mail was not “so strident” as to remove the discretion on the part of the recipient as to how he or she would vote.  Patterson J added: “The debate shows a far reaching discussion between members and displays no evidence of closed minds in relation to the decisions that had to be taken”; and “A fair minded and reasonable observer in possession of all the facts would not be able to conclude on the basis of all the evidence that there was any real possibility of predetermination as a result of the e-mail …”.