A, R (on the application of) v B Council

A, R (on the application of) v B Council

The Council's decision was rational and proportionate given the claimant's extremely serious past offences involving children and schools, the absence of medical evidence negating risk of recurrence, and the Council's duty to protect vulnerable children. The presence of an escort did not sufficiently mitigate the risk. The Council was entitled to consider all convictions, including spent ones, under statutory exceptions. There was a pressing need for the Council's action, and no lesser measure would suffice. The decision was not unlawful and did not breach Article 8 ECHR.

Parties
Claimant: A; Defendant: B Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review granted; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Local Authority Decisions, Rehabilitation of Offenders, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Public Law/private Law Distinction, Spent Convictions, Risk Assessment in Employment
Administrative Law Employment Law Human Rights Judicial Review of Local Authority Decisions Rehabilitation of Offenders Article 8 ECHR Proportionality Public Law/private Law Distinction +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Claimant

B Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's refusal to permit the claimant to act as a school transport driver was irrational or disproportionate
  2. 2 Whether Article 8 ECHR (right to private life) was engaged and breached
  3. 3 Whether the Council's decision-making process was flawed

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's decision was rational and proportionate given the claimant's extremely serious past offences involving children and schools, the absence of medical evidence negating risk of recurrence, and the Council's duty to protect vulnerable children. The presence of an escort did not sufficiently mitigate the risk. The Council was entitled to consider all convictions, including spent ones, under statutory exceptions. There was a pressing need for the Council's action, and no lesser measure would suffice. The decision was not unlawful and did not breach Article 8 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review granted; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Order prohibiting disclosure of the identity of the claimant, the defendant Council, and the destination of the route operated by the claimant under CPR 39.2(4).
  • Claimant to pay defendant's costs, not to be enforced without leave of the court; amount to be assessed if not agreed.