Why Judicial Review is a real remedy in SEN and disability cases
by stevebroach
A large part of my contribution to social media involves suggesting that people consider judicial review as a way turning their rights into reality. However I recognise that for most people the prospect of taking the state to the High Court is seriously off-putting. The point of this post is to try to show that judicial review isn’t remote and terrifying but instead is a real way to get a remedy for unlawful conduct by the state – with a particular focus on how this applies to disabled children and adults and their families.
To start at the beginning. Judicial review is the process by which the High Court supervises the conduct of public bodies and makes sure they act in accordance with the law. In line with a wonderful quote from Lord Justice Sedley, judicial review isn’t in fact so much about ‘rights’ as it is about ‘wrongs’. What the Administrative Court (the part of the High Court which hears judicial review cases) is looking to do is identify where public bodies have got the law wrong and ensure this is put right. So every judicial review case in fact promotes the ‘rule of law’ – the essential principle that everyone is governed by the same law and must comply with their legal obligations.
What does a judicial review case involve? Well, it firstly almost certainly needs to involve lawyers. In theory a disabled person or family member could make an application for judicial review without legal advice but there are two main reasons why this would be likely to be an extremely bad move:
- Public law (the law governing the conduct of public bodies) is complicated. Not only will there be a web of statutes, regulations, guidance and case law covering the relevant dispute but there are likely to be important ‘common law’ principles in play too. The common law is judge-made law developed over the decades to reflect the standards of our society. An important example in many SEN and disability cases is the common law duty to carry out a fair consultation. Disabled people and families simply will not be able to identify all the relevant legal issues in their case – or indeed whether they actually have a case – without legal advice.
- Unlike the Tribunal (on which see more below) applications for judicial review generate significant legal costs which in the vast majority of cases have to be paid by the party who loses – for both sides. So even if a disabled person or family found a pro bono advocate to help them with a judicial review application it would still be dangerous to issue the application without legal advice and representation (and legal aid – again see below) because of the risk of having to pay the other side’s legal costs – which could be tens of thousands of pounds.
So disabled people and families need lawyers for judicial review. Despite the government’s best efforts, we still just about have a functioning legal aid system in England and Wales and thankfully judicial review is one of the things it will pay for – because in technical terms, all applications for judicial review remain ‘within scope’. Legal aid is subject to two tests – means and merits. Firstly, applicants have to show that they have very little money (‘means’) in terms of both income and savings. The legal aid means test is complicated and specialist solicitors will help with it. It is important to note that in children’s cases, it will very often be the means of the child that are assessed rather than the parent(s) – so ‘ordinary’ families can often access legal aid. Of course sadly many disabled adults and many families with disabled children live in poverty and so legal aid eligibility may not be a problem. The second test for legal aid relates to the merits of the proposed case and that is something lawyers can and will address.
What does legal aid bring if it’s granted? Firstly, it pays your own lawyers fees. Secondly and more importantly, it provides ‘cost protection’ – meaning that if you lose then you won’t have to pay anything towards the other side’s legal costs, unless you or your lawyers have done something unbelievably stupid (in the hundreds of cases I’ve been involved in I’ve never known a costs order to be made personally against a claimant who has legal aid, although it’s important to note that it is possible). So legal aid is almost essential to bringing a claim for judicial review. I say ‘almost’ because there are some other innovative ways to fund judicial review cases and get costs protection – there is a concept called a ‘protective costs order’ where the court can limit or remove the costs a party has to pay if it loses, and lawyers may still sometimes act on a ‘no win no fee’ basis. Specialist solicitors can advise on these issues.
What does an application for judicial review involve? Well in many ways I’d suggest it is far less onerous for the claimant(s) than appealing to the Tribunal – something far too many families with disabled children end up doing at least once. Most of the legwork will be done by the lawyers and it is up to each claimant to decide the extent to which he or she wants to be involved in the claim beyond ‘giving instructions’ (telling the lawyers what you want them to do for you).
Judicial review cases are almost always decided ‘on the papers’ – i.e. there is no oral evidence. So disabled people and families will provide their evidence to the court in the form of a written witness statement which their lawyers will produce and will not have to give evidence orally in court. The process for the application has two stages. First the court decides whether it will grant ‘permission’ – ie allow the claim to proceed to a full hearing. Permission should be granted where the claim is arguable and there is no other reason like delay (see below) to refuse permission. At the permission stage (or even earlier, perhaps on the day the case is issued) the court can grant ‘interim relief’, requiring something to be done or not done by the public body until the claim is finally heard. A good example of interim relief is the order reported this week requiring Salford to continue to provide transport for disabled people to services. This is the kind of interim relief which is often granted – an order to preserve the ‘status quo’, in other words keep things as they were before the decision was taken until the application can be heard.
If permission is granted then there will be a substantive hearing of the claim, usually lasting one day in simpler cases, stretching up to perhaps a week or longer in the most complex cases. After the hearing, the court will either dismiss (meaning the decision challenged stands) or allow the application. If the application is allowed (i.e. the claimant wins) then the court moves on to decide what ‘relief’ to grant. This often involves a declaration of what the law requires which the public body is expected to (and almost always does) comply with. The court also frequently issues ‘quashing orders’, which essentially delete the decision challenged and put things back how they were before the decision was taken. In rare cases the court may make a ‘mandatory order’ requiring the public body to act in a certain way (for example to provide speech and language therapy specified in a statement / EHC Plan) or require the state to pay damages – generally only where there has been a breach of a claimant’s human rights as protected by the Human Rights Act 1998 and then only in relatively modest sums.
So judicial review is a powerful remedy. Yes, the main ‘relief’ granted does not force the state to act in a particular way – but in practice it is rare for a public body to lose a judicial review claim and then try to re-make the decision and go ahead regardless. A notable example of a successful judicial review stopping a public body in its tracks is the challenge to Birmingham’s decision to move to ‘critical only’ adult social care. As a result of a claim brought by four disabled people and their carers and the court’s orders, tens of thousands of severely disabled people in Birmingham with ‘substantial’ needs are still getting vital services.
Which cases are suitable for judicial review? In short, cases which are serious and urgent and where there is no other effective remedy. Judicial review is the ‘remedy of last resort’ – so if there is another effective way to get a problem resolved it must be used. The most obvious example here is the Tribunal – the Administrative Court will almost never grant permission in a claim where there is a right of appeal to a Tribunal. The new SEN scheme has (bizarrely) preserved the approach to the Tribunal of the old system – so there is only an appeal right to the Tribunal in relation to whether a child or young person needs an EHC Plan and the educational contents of the Plan. If your dispute relates to one of the matters specified in section 51 of the Children and Families Act then you must appeal to the Tribunal – otherwise the Tribunal has no power to resolve the dispute. So to emphasise – there is no appeal right in relation to disputes concerning health or social care provision in EHC Plans, nor other related issues such as whether a Direct Payment should be made to the young person or family.
What about complaints? There are formal complaints processes for Local Authorities and health bodies, ending up with the Local Government Ombudsman and Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman respectively. Complaints can be very effective and are particularly appropriate for getting redress (including financial compensation) when things have gone wrong in the past. However:
- The Ombudsmen are not well placed to resolve disputes about what the law requires. For example, it will need to be the court not the Local Government Ombudsman that decides how wide the get-out clause is for Local Authorities in relation to the new SEN Direct Payments.
- Complaints processes take a very long time to resolve.
- The powers of the Ombudsmen are much more limited than those of the court – for example, there is no power to order or recommend any kind of interim relief while a complaint is progressed.
Every case needs to be carefully considered on its own merits to decide whether judicial review is appropriate, with specialist advice taken. However as a very general rule, in my view judicial review would be likely to be the appropriate remedy where there is a serious and urgent ‘live’ dispute which relates not just to ‘maladministration’ but to an arguable error of law on the part of the public body.
A key reason not to get the right remedy from the outset is that judicial review is supposed to be a speedy process and there is a burden on the claimant to issue proceedings as quickly as possible and no later than three months from the date of the decision being challenged (note – the date it was taken, not the date the claimant knew about it). Claimants also need to comply with the ‘Pre-Action Protocol’, which in particular requires a ‘letter before action’ to be sent to the defendant giving them (typically) 14 days to respond and put things right before the application is issued. It is possible to get the deadline extended but the court will only allow this if there is good reason and it is not unfair to the defendant.
So the essential message is that disabled people and families should take specialist advice on whether they have a claim for judicial review as quickly as possible. I have never known a disabled person or family take legal advice too soon, but sadly I’ve known many wait far too long to get advice. It’s hard enough taking the state to court without also having to persuade the court to hear the application ‘out of time’ if this can possibly be avoided.
Where should this advice come from? It needs to come from a specialist solicitor who spends their time advising and representing disabled people and families in applications for judicial review. I have put together a list of some of the specialist solicitors with disability expertise at the end of the ‘Using the Law to Fight the Cuts’ paper I wrote with Kate Whittaker. This list is now a little out-of-date (an update to the paper is due this autumn) but many of the main firms are on there with their contact details.
I hope this (long) post has shown that judicial review can play a vital role in making rights real for disabled people and families. I would love there to be no need for disabled people and families to take the state to court – but back in the real world of cuts and flawed decision making it will always be necessary to have this safeguard. Not only can judicial review achieve a remedy in individual cases, but also those bringing judicial review applications are performing a wider public service. Applications for judicial review often result in major policy changes (like the Birmingham case above) – and even where they don’t, there is a general public interest in promoting the rule of law by making sure decisions and actions of the state are subject to proper scrutiny. Judicial review is a good thing, notwithstanding what the current Lord Chancellor might think.
More information on how judicial review works is available from the fantastic Public Law Project. I also found this great short guide on the Leigh Day website.
As always comments and questions are welcome below.
[…] blogged over the weekend about judicial review as a key tool for making SEN and disability rights real. I thought it might be helpful to set out […]
LikeLike
[…] the new placement is the ‘most appropriate’ one available for them. The remedy is judicial review. Critically, pretty much all looked after children (and indeed almost all young care leavers) will […]
LikeLike
[…] How does all this help families? Firstly, it means that every Local Authority must have a range of short break services in its area – which must be set out in its short break services statement (regulation 5). Secondly, these services must not just be ‘crisis’ services but services designed to help families live (in short) ordinary lives. Thirdly, a range of different types of short break services must be available in every local area. Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, the services available must be ‘sufficient’ (so far as reasonably practical). So every Local Authority has to make a rational and well-informed decision about what level of investment it is ‘sufficient’ for it to make in its short break services – and a failure to make such a decision, or an irrational decision which does not take the level of need properly into account, could be challenged by way of judicial review. […]
LikeLike
I’m interested in the time limits for judicial review. If proceedings need to be brought as soon as possible and no later than 3 months from the date of the decision being challenged what if what you are challenging is the failure to make a decision? For example, an LA who refuses to finalise a draft child in need assessment which has been in progress for 11 months because the family do not consider that the provision offered will meet their needs.
How would you get remedy in that case?
LikeLike
Good point Paul – in a case like this the breach would be very likely to be classed as ‘ongoing’ and so there would be no time problem. These are precisely the kind of technical issues about which families need specialist advice.
LikeLike
Judicial review did not succeed as a process for us, we were told education matters must go to tribunal even though it really was grounds for judicial review…. A nightmare as I then had to either continue with the solicitor who knew the case or start from scratch with a legal aid firm. Still pursuing the case, nearly bankrupt and barely sane. My child not receiving education or therapy or any social contact! Local authority ignoring all evidence and trying to put my child into a school which uses restraint as form of managing kids, thinks it’s ok!
LikeLike
Really sorry to hear this. I would strongly suggest contacting a specialist legal aid firm like one of the ones I give details for in this post. No parent should ever find themselves in financial hardship as a result of trying to enforce their child’s rights.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your response. We are still working together with the solicitor who has specialist knowledge and experience. The problem seems to be partly that the local authority were able to make it seem like a tribunal matter when assuredly it was not, by issuing a Final Statement 8 months late just before we went to court; and partly it seems due to the fact that the judge was in favour of the new rules and guiding principles re the Judicial Review process itself (and Friday afternoon, the last case.. work related fatigue?!).
The local authority have with-held records, tried to bully us into sending our child back to the school which we maintain used excessive and inappropriate physical restraints and seclusion to manage him, by saying they would take us to court for chronic absenteeism unless we de-registered him and “chose” ehe. The LADO safeguarding investigation of my unsubstantiated complaints of abuse (the school has 10 had other formal complaints since 2010, this from a FOI request) was not done as the LADO believed fraudelent info from the school re my apparently munchausen syndrome behaviour, and the local authority backed this up, even though the records – some of which I have finally obtained after 13 months) show the opposite is true. We also have medical expert evidence to show that our son has indeed suffered trauma at his schools, and that Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is indicated when we had reason to keep him at home due to the treatment he was receiving in school and on top of all other placements.
We are hoping to get a decent ehc plan eventually and that he is provided for at home till he recovers from being in school. But the local authority would prefer to fight this rather than ruin their fine reputation for saving huge amounts of money every year in their ed dept and for having n award winning elective home ed policy (gee wonder why.. !) Thanks for reading this.
LikeLike
[…] be heard in the county court, systemic challenges to Local Authority failings can be brought by judicial review – for which legal aid may well be available. If you think you have such a challenge consult a […]
LikeLike
[…] Please post any comments and general questions about the law on direct payments below and I will address those which are not case specific. For case specific issues I suggest contacting a specialist solicitor. While low level disputes around direct payments should be resolved through the local authority complaints process, serious disputes may require an application for judicial review. […]
LikeLike
[…] disabled children, disabled adults and those who care for them can enforce their rights. I have written previously about why judicial review provides a real remedy in SEN and disability cases. I’ve also […]
LikeLike
[…] nursery provision in a Welsh local authority. So this is a follow-up post to show, once again, that judicial review is a real remedy when unfair and unlawful cuts are made to public […]
LikeLike
[…] disabled people whose needs are deemed ineligible will be able to seek redress through an application for judicial review if there is a legal issue in play – as there undoubtedly will be in many of the earlier […]
LikeLike
[…] challenges, both generally and specifically in the cuts context. This is yet further reason why judicial review is such an important means for disabled people and other heavy users of public services to assert […]
LikeLike
[…] People already have a right to challenge unlawful placement decisions – it’s called the right to apply for judicial review. The issue is on what legal basis such a challenge could be brought. This is why clause 4 of the […]
LikeLike
[…] in the appeal have spoken powerfully about the unfairness of this ‘DLA Takeaway’ rule). Judicial review and legal aid remain available (despite the government’s best efforts) to challenge the […]
LikeLike
[…] system in this country and unlawful practices by public bodies can and should be challenged through judicial review. We need to keep being innovative as well – for example challenging the charities (including […]
LikeLike
[…] government re-made the closure decision. This is a rare example of a fundamental weakness with judicial review – that a challenge to the process which succeeds may just result in the decision being taken […]
LikeLike
[…] don’t know the answer. I do know however that where breaches are ongoing judicial review can be a real and effective remedy – and legal aid is at least still available in this area, subject to a means […]
LikeLike
[…] do know that something called a judicial review can work. You can still get legal aid for a judicial […]
LikeLike
Thanks for this valuable piece. It highlights the need for specialist advice to help parents and young people identify the most appropriate route to remedy in SEN cases. One main problem is that most children and young people don’t have (possibly don’t need) an EHC Plan so don’t have access to tribunal. Schools are the responsible bodies for most SEN provision but not well equipped to deal with SEN complaints. JR is a little known process but as you explain is often the best option. The LGO is very good on SEN but has limited remit for SEN and now cannot cover schools. It would be good to include a mention of mediation and its role in relation to complaints, judicial review and tribunals. Thanks again.
LikeLike
Thanks for this very thoughtful and informed comment. I agree mediation can be helpful, but I also have concerns about its use in this area. Where I’ve seen mediation work well is in commercial disputes where the parties have equality of arms. My concern is that parents may feel pressured to ‘mediate away’ their children’s rights unless they have access to high quality advice as to what those rights are.
We do cover mediation and its role, in particular with Tribunal appeals, in the Remedies chapter of Disabled Children: A Legal Handbook: http://www.councilfordisabledchildren.org.uk/media/1089737/chapter-11.pdf
LikeLike
Sorry for long delay in replying but have been prompted to send a follow-up comment because of the upcoming national trial on a single route of redress and the guidance developed as part of that, which tries to cover all the complaint/dispute areas and JR and ombud as options if CCG and social care don’t comply with tribunal recommendations. On mediation, happy to talk with you sometime about how this works well in practice and is a good option for school-based SEND disputes, and to hear more about your concerns about this. There is a PLP practitioners’ handbook on JR and mediation which we did in 2011 – available here: https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/MJRhandbookFINAL.pdf
Also, on JR, are you familiar with the research (again PLP) on the value of JR, here:
Click to access Value-and-Effects-of-Judicial-Review.pdf
And also written up on UKAJI’s blog at:
https://ukaji.org/2015/10/21/busting-the-myths-of-judicial-review-new-empirical-evidence-on-outcomes-and-value-for-money/
Just thought I’d flag up some potentially useful research resources!
LikeLike
Thanks – very helpful. Familiar with PLP’s research but not the handbook on mediation, will take a look!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on L8in.
LikeLike
[…] Source: Why Judicial Review is a real remedy in SEN and disability cases […]
LikeLike
[…] to cuts are generally brought as applications for judicial review. Whilst ‘group actions’ are common in the US, and increasingly in the UK in relation to […]
LikeLike
[…] However it is important to keep in mind that for cases which need to go to the High Court via an application for judicial review (i.e. everything that doesn’t go to SENDIST) a legal aid solicitor will be […]
LikeLike
My LA were inspected last year and ordered to produce a written statement of action with regards to the long delays in ASD assessments. I was invited to participate in this process as a parent and autistic adult. Having checked over the proposed pathways for CYP I believed that they were not NICE Guidelines compliant. I raised this at the first meeting I had with the CCG. I was never invited back, the statement of action was submitted claiming parents were in full agreement. I believe that CYP are being missed. (Being refused an assessment). Would this be reason for judicial review?
LikeLike
I can’t advise online – but I can say that it’s certainly reason to seek advice. If you’d like to email me – sbroach at Monckton dot com – I can help you to find a solicitor
LikeLike
[…] potentially a very significant development, as previously the only legal remedy in these areas was judicial review. While judicial review can be a very effective remedy in serious and urgent cases and cases […]
LikeLike
[…] challenge in relation to her daughter Francesca’s post-16 education shows yet again that judicial review can be a real remedy for children, young people and families. Rachel explains below why she was forced to pursue a […]
LikeLike