Report comment

Well done to the Law Centres Network for bring this. I would recommend that the judgment is read in full. At its most basic a decision was made that the system was broken and needed to be changed based on evidence that simply was not there. Worse still it was replaced with a system that was more likely to result in the duty scheme becoming unviable than the scheme it was to replace. Public bodies have a very wide margin of appreciation and can make pretty much whatever decision they wish, provided they do not step outside the bounds of irrationality, procedural impropriety or unlawfulness. The decision of the MoJ to change the scheme as it did clearly stepped outside these bounds on any reading of the facts and it therefore acted unlawfully. If the court made this finding, but allowed a clearly unlawful decision to proceed, then it would be acting politically and outside its jurisdiction. In the event the court merely did what Parliament intended and found a clearly unlawful decision, unlawful.