R (Capenhurst) v Leicester City Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 September 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWHC 2124 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/1230/2004 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 15 September 2004 |
[2004] EWHC 2124 (Admin)
The Honourable Mr Justice Silber
Case No: CO/1230/2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Michael Fordham (instructed by The Public Law Project) for the Claimants
Tim Straker QC and Charles Bourne (instructed by Anthony Cross, Assistant Head of Legal Services of Leicester City Council) for the Defendant
Silber J:
I Introduction
Jennifer Capenhurst, Terence Kirby, Ian King, Tejal Mistry and Louise Joachim ("the claimants") are representatives in the sense of being service-users of six voluntary organisations (collectively referred to as "the six voluntary organisations") in Leicester, which have for some time been funded by Leicester City Council ("the council"). By six letters dated 25 and 26 February 2004 (collectively called "the decision letters"), the council indicated its intention to cease funding for each of these six voluntary organisations with effect from different dates in 2004. The Full Council approved those decisions when its budget was approved on 25 February 2004.
By the present proceedings, the claimants are seeking to quash the decisions of the council contained in each of the six decision letters. The basis of the claimants' challenge is that the decision-making process of the council was unfair; in particular, it is contended that although the council endeavoured to consult with the six voluntary organisations before making these decisions prior to reaching their decision, it failed to do so properly as it did not explain the criteria which it would apply before making its final decision whether to continue funding for the six voluntary organisations. It is also contended by the claimants that the council failed to give adequate reasons in each of the six decision letters for its decision not to continue funding.
As I will explain, one of the voluntary organisations involved in the present proceedings was entitled to an internal review of the decision to terminate its funding. It invoked that right and the internal review was still under way at the end of the oral submissions. It is significant that after permission had been given by Richards J to pursue these judicial review proceedings, the council undertook to continue funding of the six voluntary sector projects until after the determination of this application. Furthermore, the evidence shows that since the decision was made by the council to cease funding the six voluntary projects, it has agreed to finance some parts of them and that some further negotiations are or may be proceeding.
It seemed prudent to delay producing this judgment until after determination of the internal review to which I have just referred. I only received the report of the internal review in June 2004 upon which counsel chose to make written submissions, rather than oral submissions and these were only completed on 15 July 200I was then unfortunately unable, because of outstanding judicial commitments, to produce this judgment before the end of term.
II The Parties
The six voluntary sector projects with which this claim is concerned and for whom the claimants are representatives are:
(i) The Turning Point Women's Centre ("Turning Point"), which provides services for women on a large council estate. The council has provided substantial funds for Turning Point but by the decision under challenge, the council terminated the funding for Turning Point with effect from 31 March 2004. Turning Point contends that without any of this core funding from the council, it "will have to close completely";
(ii) Shree Sanatan Community Project ("Shree") is involved with providing education and development opportunities to its members, many of whom have South East Asian origins. Shree has also been receiving substantial financial assistance from the council. By a letter dated 26 February 2004, the council notified Shree that its funding of Shree would terminate on 31 March 2004 and that no funding would be payable thereafter. If all this funding is withdrawn, it is contended by Shree that it "would almost certainly close";
(iii) Ajani Women and Girls Centre ("Ajani") was established to meet the needs of African Caribbean women to realise their social, economic and personal potential. Ajani also received financial assistance from the council. By a letter of 26 February 2004, the council notified Ajani that the funding arrangements would expire automatically on 31 March 2004 and no funding would be payable thereafter. If no funding is payable by the council, it is averred by Ajani that it "will have to be terminated";
(iv) St. Gabriel's Community Centre ("St. Gabriel's") is involved with providing facilities for local groups to meet, as well as running various clubs and communities for the local community. St. Gabriel's also received substantial funding from the council and funding by its other provider of funding is only provided on the basis and condition that the council provides core funding for St. Gabriel's. By a letter dated 26 February 2004, the council notified St. Gabriel's that their funding agreement would expire automatically on 31 March 2004 and that no funding would be payable thereafter. It is said in the evidence on behalf of St. Gabriel's that the consequence of the withdrawal of all funding from the council "will mean [that St. Gabriel's] having to close";
(v) The Chinese Community Centre ("CCC") is a project which provides services to the local Chinese community in Leicester and throughout Leicestershire. It also received substantial funding from the council, but by a letter dated 26 February 2004, the council notified the CCC that their funding agreement would expire automatically on 31 March 2004 and that no funding would be payable thereafter. If all funding from the council ceases, it is averred by CCC that it "is facing closure as a result";
(vi) Voluntary Action Leicester's Voluntary Bureau ("VAL") is involved with the recruitment of volunteers for work with the elderly, with young offenders and those with mental illnesses. It had also been receiving funding from the council. By a letter dated 27 February 2004, the council gave formal notice in accordance with the terms of its grant aid contract with VAL that all funding from the council would be terminated with effect from 25 June 2004. The consequence of that, according to VAL's evidence, is that it would then face immediate closure.
The six voluntary sector projects thus contend that if the council would cease to provide any funding, they would then face immediate closure, but as I will explain, with reduced funding they would be able to continue to function in a limited way. The projects are under the auspices of different departments of the council. VAL falls within the control of the Social Care and Health Department of the council ("SCH"), while the other five voluntary sector projects (collectively called "the ELL organisations") are handled by the Education and Lifelong Learning Department ("ELL"). VAL's position is also different from that of the other voluntary organisations because first, it has been able to seek an internal review of the decision to cease funding it and second, its complaint about its decision letter is different from that of the ELL organisations.
The present claims arise as a result of the council elections in May 2003, which led to a change in political control of the council. The policy of the new administration is to restrict funding to those entities providing services, which were judged to be "core" services in the sense that the council was legally obliged or strongly expected to provide those services.
The council do not criticise in any form whatsoever the way in which each of the voluntary organisations has performed its services. That is not surprising because the evidence indicates that they have all performed and are still performing invaluable services for the community. Indeed, the council's decision to terminate funding for the voluntary organisations was based on its political priorities. This application is, of course, not concerned with the merits of the political decisions of the council to cease funding the voluntary organisations, but with the procedure by which the council reached and explained the decisions under challenge and which are set out in the decision letters. It is now appropriate to explain how the decisions under challenge came to be made.
III The Chronology
The council is required by statute to set a council tax by 11 March each year (s.30 Local Government Finance Act 1992). In order to do this, the council must by the same date set a budget in which all its projected expenditure is specified.
The new council elected on 1 May 2003 was pledged to a policy of providing fewer services but services of a higher standard. On 4 November 2003, the council started a process of public consultation on the services, which were to be provided in the light of the change of control in the council. Subsequently, on 15 December 2003, the council leader and his deputy wrote ("the December 2003 letter") to all funded voluntary bodies warning them that the council will:—
"only provide financial support to voluntary sector bodies where they are delivering core services which the council would otherwise wish to provide by direct provision, save for exceptional reasons" (A.79).
On 6 January 2004 ("the January 2004 letters"), the relevant departmental directors wrote to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Devon County Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
...importance to the decision, or the basis upon which the decision is likely to be taken. I accept what Silber J said in R (Capenhurst) v Leicester City Council (2004) 7 CCLR 557. 69 Where, as here, for the purposes of the consultation process, the decision-maker does in fact set out his cruc......
-
[1] Hon. Shawn Richards [2] Hon. Timothy Harris [3] Hon. Eugene A. Hamilton [4] Hon. Mark Brantley Claimants v [1] The Constituency Boundaries Commission(Being Mr. R.A. Peter Jenkins, Hon. Asim Martin, Hon. Marcella Liburd Hon. Vance Amory, and Hon. Vincent Byron) [2] The Prime Minister of St. Christopher and Nevis [3] Attorney General of St Christopher and Nevis (in his capacity as Representative of His Excellency The Governor General) Defendants [ECSC]
...claimants) they had decided to consult, and to seek comments on them. Considered: R v Leicester City Council ex parte Capenhurst [2004] EWHC 2124 (Admin) 14. Up to the deadline of 2 nd July 2013, none of the consultees had had a reasonable opportunity to state their views. At this stage, n......
-
R (on the application of Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust) v Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts and another
...fairness that a consultation document presents the issues in a way that facilitates an effective response: see, for example, R (Capenhurst) v Leicester City Council [2004] EWHC 2124 (Admin), [2004] A.C.D. 93. No doubt for that reason, as will appear below, the consultation document in thi......
-
Bokrosova v London Borough of Lambeth
...following additional cases, although not cited, were referred to in the skeleton arguments:R (Capenhurst) v Leicester City Council [2004] EWHC 2124 (Admin); 7 CCLR 557R (Sumpter) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] EWCA Civ 1033, CACLAIM for judicial reviewBy a claim form date......