Sheakh v Lambeth Council: Standard for Discharging Public Sector Equality Duty in Experimental Traffic Orders

Introduction

The case of Sheakh, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Lambeth Council ([2022] EWCA Civ 457) addresses a critical question regarding the implementation of experimental traffic orders by local authorities under emergency circumstances. At the heart of this appeal is whether the London Borough of Lambeth Council fulfilled its obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty (Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010) when instituting Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The appellant, Ms. Sofia Sheakh, a resident severely dependent on her car due to disabilities, contended that the introduction of LTNs disproportionately disadvantaged her and others like her, thereby violating the equality duty.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Mr Justice Kerr, dismissing Ms. Sheakh's claims. The court concluded that Lambeth Council lawfully discharged its Public Sector Equality Duty when implementing the LTNs. The council had acted within the framework of statutory requirements, given the urgent context of the pandemic and followed appropriate procedures for experimental traffic orders. While acknowledging the unintended consequences for some residents, the court found that the council's approach, which included ongoing monitoring and planned equality impact assessments, satisfied the "due regard" standard mandated by Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced established case law to interpret the Public Sector Equality Duty:

R. (on the application of Baker) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008]: Clarified that the duty does not require a substantive result.
R. (on the application of Brown) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008]: Established that there is no prescribed procedure for compliance.
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977]: Implied a duty of reasonable enquiry.
R. (on the application of Bailey) v Brent London Borough Council [2011]: Emphasized understanding obvious equality impacts without exhaustive investigation.
R. (on the application of Bracking) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013]: Outlined eight principles regarding the duty of due regard.
R. (on the application of Good Law Project and Runnymede Trust) v The Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022]: Reiterated the contextual nature of the duty.

These precedents collectively shaped the court's interpretation, emphasizing flexibility and contextual assessment in discharging the equality duty.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on whether Lambeth Council exercised "due regard" to the equality needs as stipulated by Section 149. Key points include:

Contextual Application: The experimental nature of the LTNs, combined with the urgent pandemic-related guidance, justified a "rolling assessment" approach.
Delegation and Responsibility: Mr. Dosunmu, the Strategic Director: Resident Services, made decisions based on provisional equality impact assessments, aligning with delegated authority.
Proportionality and Good Faith: The council acted in good faith to balance public health measures with equality considerations, planning for ongoing assessments.
Flexibility in Compliance: The duty of "due regard" does not prescribe rigid procedures but requires reasonable and context-sensitive considerations.

The court recognized that while LTNs had adverse effects on some residents, the council's methodology for addressing these impacts through future assessments and consultations was sufficient for compliance.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for public authorities:

Flexibility in Policy Implementation: Authorities can employ experimental measures under emergency conditions without immediately fulfilling all equality impact assessments, provided they plan for ongoing evaluations.
Emphasis on Contextual Compliance: The standard for "due regard" remains fluid, requiring courts to consider the specific circumstances surrounding each decision.
Future Precedents: The case sets a benchmark for balancing urgent public needs with equality obligations, potentially influencing how similar challenges are addressed in future.

Overall, the judgment reinforces that while equality duties are paramount, there is room for pragmatic and situation-specific approaches in their fulfillment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Public Sector Equality Duty (Section 149)

This duty mandates that public authorities actively consider and address equality needs related to protected characteristics such as disability, race, gender, etc., when performing their functions. "Due regard" involves eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity, and fostering good relations among diverse groups.

Experimental Traffic Orders

Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, local authorities can implement temporary measures to control traffic flow for specific purposes. These orders can be experimental, lasting up to 18 months, allowing authorities to test and assess the effectiveness and impacts of traffic management schemes like LTNs.

Rolling Assessment

This refers to the ongoing evaluation of a policy's effects over time rather than completing a comprehensive assessment before implementation. In this case, Lambeth Council planned to monitor the impacts of LTNs continuously and adjust policies based on real-time data and community feedback.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Sheakh v Lambeth Council underscores a nuanced approach to fulfilling the Public Sector Equality Duty within the framework of emergency policy-making. By validating the council's "rolling assessment" method, the judgment acknowledges the complexities and urgent demands that public authorities may face. It affirms that "due regard" is context-dependent and that authorities can lawfully balance immediate public needs with ongoing equality considerations, provided there is a genuine commitment to evaluating and addressing any adverse impacts as they emerge.

This ruling not only clarifies the boundaries and expectations surrounding the Public Sector Equality Duty but also provides a precedent for how experimental and urgent public policies can be implemented responsibly and fairly. It highlights the importance of flexibility, good faith, and proactive engagement in public decision-making processes, ensuring that equality considerations remain integral even in the face of unprecedented challenges.