Daniels, R (on the application of) v Prime Minister & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

On 14 June 2017, a devastating fire occurred at Grenfell Tower in Kensington, resulting in the deaths of 71 residents and leaving hundreds homeless. The tragedy became a significant national event, with the damaged building remaining a prominent landmark. The claimant's father, an elderly disabled resident living on the 16th floor since 1983, was among the deceased.

Following the fire, the Prime Minister announced the establishment of an independent public inquiry to investigate the causes and circumstances of the tragedy, chaired by a judge, with the aim of providing justice for victims and their families. Sir Martin Moore-Bick, a retired senior judge, was appointed as Chair of the Inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005.

The Inquiry's terms of reference were developed following consultations with victims, families, and other interested parties, focusing on the fire's causes, building design, regulations, and responses by authorities. The Inquiry was initially constituted with Sir Martin as sole chair, with no other panel members appointed at that stage, though the Act allows for additional appointments with the Chair's consent.

Concerns were raised by representatives of those affected, urging the appointment of a diverse panel rather than a sole chair, to enhance public confidence and ensure fairness, balance, and impartiality. Despite these representations, the Prime Minister decided not to appoint additional panel members at the initial stage, considering the expertise of the Chair and appointed assessors sufficient and prioritising the timely completion of the Inquiry's initial report.

The claimant issued judicial review proceedings challenging the Prime Minister's decision, alleging misdirection in law, failure to comply with procedural duties under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 2, inadequate reasons for the decision, and breach of the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010.

The application for permission for judicial review was initially refused by the High Court, and the claimant sought renewal of permission for an oral hearing, which was considered by the Court of Appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Prime Minister misdirected herself by failing to treat the maintenance of public confidence as a key or prime factor in promoting the statutory purpose of the Inquiries Act 2005.
2. Whether the Prime Minister erred by disregarding the procedural duty under Article 2 of the ECHR in deciding not to appoint additional panel members.
3. Whether the Prime Minister failed to provide adequate reasons for her decision not to appoint additional panel members.
4. Whether the Prime Minister breached the public sector equality duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 in making her decision.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Prime Minister misdirected herself by not recognising that public confidence is a fundamental factor in fulfilling the statutory purpose of the 2005 Act, which includes ensuring inquiries properly address matters of public concern.
• The decision failed to consider the procedural obligations under Article 2 ECHR, as the appointment of a diverse panel is critical to ensuring public confidence and the effectiveness of the investigation.
• The appointment of assessors does not substitute for the need for a diverse inquiry panel to maintain public confidence in the inquiry's conclusions.
• The Prime Minister failed to provide adequate reasons for refusing to appoint panel members, particularly by not engaging properly with representations about diversity and public confidence.
• The decision breached the public sector equality duty by insufficiently considering the impact on communities affected by the fire, many of whom belong to protected categories under the Equality Act 2010.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Prime Minister properly considered all relevant factors, including public confidence, but was entitled to weigh these against other considerations such as the expertise of the Chair and assessors and the need for timely completion of the Inquiry.
• The Inquiry Chair is a highly experienced former senior judge with the necessary expertise to conduct the Inquiry alone, supported by assessors with relevant experience.
• The appointment of additional panel members was not necessary to meet procedural obligations under Article 2 ECHR or to maintain public confidence.
• The reasons given in the Prime Minister's letter and the subsequent detailed correspondence were adequate and consistent, addressing the key issues raised by the claimant.
• The public sector equality duty was properly discharged, with due regard given to the diversity of the affected community and consideration of mechanisms such as the advisory panel to foster engagement and confidence.
• The risk of delay to the Inquiry and the need to avoid undermining other investigations and prosecutions were legitimate and important considerations in the decision not to appoint additional panel members at the initial stage.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the statutory framework under the Inquiries Act 2005, noting that the Act mandates consideration of expertise and impartiality in appointing inquiry panel members but does not require a multi-member panel if a chairman alone has sufficient expertise, especially supported by assessors.

The Prime Minister's decision not to appoint additional panel members was found to be within the range of rational decisions, considering the Chair’s qualifications, the assistance of assessors, and the urgent need for a timely report to address risks to other buildings.

The court acknowledged the claimant’s submission that public confidence is an important factor but held that the statutory purpose does not elevate public confidence above other relevant factors, and the Prime Minister properly weighed this alongside others.

Regarding Article 2 ECHR, the court found the Inquiry’s independence and impartiality satisfied the procedural requirements, and no particular panel composition was mandated by the Convention.

The court accepted that the reasons provided in the Prime Minister’s letter and the detailed Government Legal Department correspondence were adequate and consistent with legal standards, rejecting claims of impermissible post hoc rationalisation.

On the public sector equality duty, the court held that the Prime Minister had given rigorous consideration to equality matters and the diverse nature of the affected community, including considering alternative mechanisms such as an advisory panel, fulfilling statutory obligations.

The court emphasised that it was not a question of substituting its own view but assessing whether the decision was lawful and rational, concluding no arguable error of law or irrationality was demonstrated.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED PERMISSION for judicial review of the Prime Minister’s decision not to appoint additional panel members to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry at the initial stage.

The decision confirms that under the Inquiries Act 2005, the appointment of a sole chair with assessors can satisfy the statutory requirements for expertise and impartiality, and that the decision-maker has a broad discretion to weigh factors including public confidence and the need for expedition.

The ruling does not preclude the appointment of additional panel members at later stages of the Inquiry. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts of this case. The direct effect is that the Inquiry proceeded initially with a single chair supported by assessors, with the possibility of future panel appointments left open.