![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Kohler, R (On the Application Of) v Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime [2018] EWHC 1881 (Admin) (20 July 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/1881.html Cite as: [2018] EWHC 1881 (Admin) |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
The Queen (on the application of Kohler) |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime |
Defendant |
|
- and - |
||
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis |
Interested Party |
____________________
Mr Jonathan Swift Q.C and Ms Heather Emmerson (instructed by Transport for London and Metropolitan Police Service) for the Defendant and the Interested Party
Hearing dates: 6 and 7 June 2018
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Lindblom and Mr Justice Lewis:
INTRODUCTION
THE BACKGROUND
MOPAC
The Consultation Exercise
"4. Do you agree that it is right that the Metropolitan Police Service prioritise police officers over poorly-used front counters?
5. In the five cases set out in this document, do you agree that it is right to swap which front counter will remain open in order to maximise savings and receipts?
6. Are there any front counters which should be retained, on the basis of demand, where the impact on budgets, savings and receipts can be limited?
7. Should we consider low-cost alternatives to front counters for communities over 45 minutes from their nearest front counter? What options should we consider?"
"5. To what extent do you agree that flexible opportunities to contact police officers (e.g. Community Contact Sessions) are a suitable alternative to accessing the police via a front counter?
6. Please include any further comments about flexible opportunities to contact police officers as an alternative to accessing the police via a front counter.
7. It is proposed some front counter locations are swapped across London, in order to maximise savings and capital receipts. To what extent do you agree that the following changes should take place?
8. After reading the draft strategy document, should we consider low-cost alternatives to front counters for communities over 45 minutes from their nearest front counter? What options should we consider?"
"In order to ensure that we continue to provide front counters across London for those people who chose this method of communication with officers, or for those who need to use a front counter for example to verify their identity, make payments or if they have a legal obligation to attend a front counter while at the same time prioritise spending scarce resources on front line officers, we will retain one 24-hour police station in each borough. This follows similar decisions taken by many of London's local authorities to rationalise services into one single location for members of the public to visit.
The front counters being retained are, subject to a few exceptions set out below, generally London's busiest front counters, with three quarters of all of the crime reports at front counters taking place at 24/7 stations. In fact, no front counter with more than four daily crime reports is being closed. The large majority of those which will shut have fewer than two reports every day.
By closing the front counters at the remaining police stations we can exit the majority of these buildings, raising around £170 million of capital to spend on improving the technology available to officers on the front line and enhancing the remaining estate. We will also save around £10 million on front counter running costs alone, the equivalent of over 170 police officers, allowing us to deliver the Government's funding cuts without cutting deeper into the front line. Every pound saved by closing a poorly used front counter is a pound of savings that we do not have to find by reducing officers."
"In general, the 24/7 front counter being retained in each borough is the current 24/7 front counter. However, there are five places where we propose to swap the opening hours so that the retained 24/7 counter will move to a site which currently only offers daytime access, and the current 24/7 counter will close.
This is generally because the current 24/7 counter is in a building which we would like to dispose of in order to maximise savings and raise extra capital to reinvest in policing. We believe that that these changes will also enable the police to be more operationally effective, while still allowing access to residents. These changes are set out below."
"There may be circumstances where demand at a front counter which we are currently expecting to close is sufficiently high, and where it is possible to retain the counter while limiting impact on our expected savings and receipts. We will consider any evidence that local people can provide to us in this regard."
Public meetings
Written responses
"Whilst we support the general thrust of the strategy document, to improve the [Metropolitan Police Service's] on line provision in respect of both the reporting and handling of crime, we strongly believe it is premature to make irreversible decisions with regard to the fabric of the [Metropolitan Police Service] estate prior to establishing whether, and to what extent, the expected efficiencies will be realised. Although the provision of tablets and integrated software are long overdue improvement, there is a danger of overestimating the amount of additional time this will free up to be spent on patrol . In short whilst we agree that the provision of new technology is likely to improve efficiencies, it is doubtful whether it will have as dramatic an effect as the consultation document seeks to imply, in increasing the amount of time officers will spend in the community."
"7. In the light of these complexities, and doubts over the unproven assumption that a single police station is appropriate for Merton, any decision to close Wimbledon Police Station should be postponed in favour of an evidence-based analysis of the current and future policing needs throughout the borough. The Mayor's Office for Policing & Crime should then come forward with a range of proposals including: the redevelopment (and partial sale) of the Wimbledon site to include the possibility of a smaller police station being retained on Queen's Road; a similar analysis regarding Mitcham; relocation of one, or possibly both stations, to a cheaper location, for example around the Plough Lane or Dear Park Business/Industrial Parks; the introduction of DWO hubs/shops; and the development of some form of Wimbledon based super hub with a (possibly 24/7) front counter, as envisaged by the Borough Commander when addressing the Council's Overview & Scrutiny Committee Commission and the public meeting."
The decision-making process
"Merton Liberal Democrats support the general thrust of the document but opposed the closure of Wimbledon. They feel that the proposal underestimates the police station's practical and symbolic role in the heart of the community. They comment on travel times and lack of accessibility of Mitcham and note the demands of the Borough".
"The criteria for decision making is as follows:
1. Has any new evidence been presented about demand which we did not originally consider which might lead us to change our plans, subject to limiting the impact on receipts and savings?
2. Are there any specific equalities issues we didn't consider or which we need to consider further?
3. Have we had any evidence that shows the proposal is not operationally viable?
4. Have we had any evidence which means our financial assumptions are no longer correct?
5. Is there any new or significant evidence about the impact of a loss of front counter on local confidence in policing?
6. Have we been presented with new information about travel times which might affect our decision?
7. Have we had another proposal for the borough presented to us that would work operationally and allow us deliver savings which we should consider?"
"Key points: high level of local opposition largely around the symbolic presence of police station in Wimbledon, significantly better operationally than Mitcham.
Other points:
- Concerns raised around town centre and location i.e. tennis, transport hub, terrorism need to be clear that tennis and CT are policed separately.
- Need to be clear generally on financial details for retaining a front counter where a building is not being disposed of
Conclusion of discussion: no change
ACTION Ensure strategy includes detail on funding for CT and tennis.
ACTION Met to provide financials on retaining a counter where a building is not being disposed of".
"Consultation feedback: Merton
We received feedback through consultation which set out concerns of some local residents about the proposal to close Wimbledon Police Station and move the 24/7 front counter to Mitcham Police Station.
While opposition to this proposal was significant, there was no specific proposal set out by respondents which would allow us to revise our plans whilst also meeting the requirements to make significant savings across the MPS estate, and ensure capital receipts are as high as possible.
Similarly, there was no specific operational issue raised which was considered significant by the MPS operational leaders. In fact, the view of operational leaders is that moving the facilities will have no operational impact on policing in the borough."
Overall assessment
THE ISSUES
(1) Did the defendant apply unpublished criteria in making its decision and if so did the defendant apply them inconsistently (grounds 1 and 2 in the claim form and ground 4 of the additional grounds)?
(2) Did the defendant provide adequate information to enable those being consulted to respond (ground 3 in the claim form and grounds 5 and 6 in the additional grounds)?
(3) Did the defendant conscientiously consider the consultation responses (ground 4 in the claim form)?
THE FIRST ISSUE THE USE OF CRITERIA
Submissions
"46. It is important that any consultee should be aware of the basis on which a proposal put forward for the basis of consultation has been considered and will thereafter be considered by the decision-maker as otherwise the consultee would be unable to give, in Lord Woolf's words in [R. v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex p. Coughlan [2001] QB 213], either "intelligent consideration" to the proposals or to make an "intelligent response" to it. This requirement means that the person consulted was entitled to be informed or had to be made aware of what criterion would be adopted by the decision-maker and what factors would be considered decisive or of substantial importance by the decision-maker in making his decision at the end of the consultation process.
47. I do not think that a consultee would not have been properly consulted if he ought reasonably to have known the criterion, which the decision-maker would adopt or the factors, which would be considered decisive by the decision-maker but that the only reason why the consultee did not know these matters was because, for example, he had turned a blind eye to something of which he ought reasonably to have been aware. Thus, consultation will only be regarded as unfair if the consultee either did not know the criterion to be adopted by the decision-maker or ought not reasonably to have known of this criterion. Of course, what a consultee ought reasonably to have known about the factors, which will be considered decisive by the decision-maker depends on all the relevant circumstances, which may well be different in each case."
Discussion
THE SECOND ISSUE THE ADEQUACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED
Submissions
Discussion
"108 It is common ground that, whether or not consultation of interested parties and the public is a legal requirement, if it is embarked upon it must be carried out properly. To be proper, consultation must be undertaken at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage; it must include sufficient reasons for particular proposals to allow those consulted to give intelligent consideration and an intelligent response; adequate time must be given for this purpose; and the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account when the ultimate decision is taken: R v Brent London Borough Council, Ex p Gunning (1985) 84 LGR 168.
112 It has to be remembered that consultation is not litigation: the consulting authority is not required to publicise every submission it receives or (absent some statutory obligation) to disclose all its advice. Its obligation is to let those who have a potential interest in the subject matter know in clear terms what the proposal is and exactly why it is under positive consideration, telling them enough (which may be a good deal) to enable them to make an intelligent response. The obligation, although it may be quite onerous, goes no further than this."
THE THIRD ISSUE THE CONSIDERATION OF RESPONSES
Submissions
"Need to be clear generally on financials for retraining a front counter where a building is not being disposed of" and the "Action" to be taken "Met to provide financials on retaining a front counter where a building is not being disposed."
Discussion
REMEDY
CONCLUSION