R v Islington London Borough Council, ex parte Rixon
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 March 1996 |
| Date | 15 March 1996 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Before Mr Justice Sedley
Queen's Bench Division
Local authority - community care services - ministerial guidance must be followed
A local authority exercising its duty to arrange for recreational and gateway educational facilities for a disabled person was obliged to take into account practice guidance issued by the Department of Health.
Further, in reaching its decision as to the provision of care services to a disabled person in need, a local authority could not depart without good reason from the policy guidance issued by the secretary of state. Where the disabled person had learning difficulties, the local authority must conscientiously take into account non-statutory guidance from the Department of Education.
Mr Justice Sedley so stated in the Queen's Bench Division in a reserved judgment when allowing an application for judicial review by Jonathan Rixon, by his mother and next friend Stephanie Rixon, of a decision of the London Borough of Islington received in late February 1995 as to the provision, inter alia, of community care services.
His Lordship granted declarations requiring that in exercising its powers and duties under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 the local authority take into account the practice guidance issued by the Department of Health and stating that it had acted unlawfully in carrying out its duty under section 47(1)(b) of the 1990 Act in deviating without good reason from the policy guidance issued under section 7 of the 1970 Act by the secretary of state.
Miss Jennifer Richards for Mr Rixon; Mr Roger McCarthy for the local authority.
MR JUSTICE SEDLEY said that section 47 of the 1990 Act created a duty to assess the needs of a disabled person and to decide what local authority provision they called for, but not to implement the decision.
Section 2(1) of the 1970 Act created the principal duty to respond to assessed need. It was a positive duty to arrange for recreational and gateway educational facilities for disabled persons. It was a duty owed to the individuals and not simply a target duty.
Section 2(1) incorporated in turn the provisions of section 7(1) of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 which obliged local authorities to act under the general guidance of the secretary of state.
In his Lordship's judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (M) v Ashworth Hospital Authority
...from the Code without good reason. For this proposition Mr Pleming relied on dicta of Sedley J (as he then was) in R v London Borough of Islington, ex parte Rixon (1997) ELR 66, 71: “What is the meaning and effect of the obligation to ‘act under the general guidance of the Secretary of Sta......
-
R (on the application of Smieja) v Bexley London Borough Council
...a local authority shall arrange the educational and training provision specified in the LDA. 49 Mr Friel relies upon R v. London Borough of Islington ex parte Rixon [1997] ELR 66. In that case Sedley J (as he then was) considered the meaning and effect of the duty imposed upon local authori......
-
R v Cornwall County Council, ex parte E
...for local authorities to exercise social services functions in accordance with directions given by the Secretary of State. 9 In R -v—Islington LBC ex parte Rixon (1996) 1CCLR 119 Sedley J said at 123G: "What is the meaning and effect of the obligation to "act under the general guidelines of......
-
R X v London Borough of Tower Hamlets
...The legal status of statutory guidance issued under section 7 of LASSA 1970 has been considered in a number of cases. In R v. Islington Borough Council, ex parte Rixon (1998) 1 CCLR 119 at [23] Sedley J described it in these terms: "Clearly guidance is less than direction, and the word 'gen......
-
Her treatment at and around the meeting was deplorable: might safeguarding itself constitute abuse?
...105 R (Lumba) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] 2 WLR 671.Rv. London Borough of Islington, ex parte Rixon [1997] ELR 66.About the authorDavid Hewitt is a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal, in both the Health Education & Social CareChamber and the Social Entitlement Chamber......