The High Court has refused permission to Judicial review a decision of the Prime Minister following consideration of all the documents lodged by both the Claimant (Jason Barnett) and filed by the Defendant the Prime Minister.
The claim argued that the Prime minister’s decision to pass the question of whether to commission an inquiry into suicides and harm due to bullying and violence in schools, as well as a number of failings related to the issues and an alleged cover up of those issues, to the Department for Education (DfE), was ‘Irrational’, rendering the decision unlawful.
The Prime Minister’s decision, came after a written request was sent to him, asking that he commission an independent inquiry into the aforementioned issues. The Claim argued the decision, was legally irrational, given that any inquiry would be asked to investigate alleged failings as well as potential criminal misconduct within the DfE, meaning that against the principle of natural justice that ‘no man should be a judge in his own case’ and the risk of interference with human rights considerations, contrary to law. it was not reasonable that ministers in the DfE should have been given charge of the matter.
The Justice found specifically that it was a matter for the Defendant’s discretion to decide what, if anything, to do in relation to the Claimant’s letter and that the decision to pas the letter on was not unlawful.
On 15/12/2023, an application was made for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, against the decision. The challenge was made on grounds that the Justice failed to provide ‘adequate reasons’ to support his decision, rendering the decision ‘procedurally flawed’.
The entire Claim was pleaded on the grounds of ‘Irrationality’. It is alleged that the Justice failed to identify and address this ground at all, despite it being clearly identified in evidence, as central to the Claim, by both the Defendant (The Prime Minister) and the Claimant (Mr Barnett).
It is alleged that in failing to identify or address the Irrationality ground, the issues of bias, natural justice and human rights in his reasons at all, the Justice failed to provide adequate reasons to support his conclusions. In light of this, it was submitted that an appeal would have a real prospect of success and that permission to appeal should be granted.
