Liverpool City council has claimed that the population of the city has now stabilised after decades of decline – but this case last week shows the effects of that decline still cause problems, as the Council had to decide which of a number of schools to close. It also shows the limitations of judicial review and human rights, which are not necessarily the trump cards local campaigners sometimes hope.
The Council decided to close the worst-performing of its city-centre schools to deal with a surplus of school places; that also happened to be a non-religious school. After the closure, the area would be left with only one such school, together with boys’ and girls’ Catholic schools. The legal complaint was, firstly that the Council erred in assuming it could not get government funding for a plan including a future for the closed school; and secondly, whether the closure breached human rights – the right not to be discriminated against, and the rights to an education.
Silber J dismissed the claim. The Council was right to assume it could not get government funding to include the school; and in so far as human rights law applied, the decision to close was justified.
Judicial review and human rights can look like extremely powerful weapons in some types of case: in individual cases for instance about the treatment of an individual prisoner, say (although campaigners for prisoners’ rights will be very aware of the limitations of public law). In challenging “polycentric”, strategic decisions such as which of several schools to close, however – decisions involving the allocation of scarce public resources – judicial review is more difficult.
I can't imagine what they were thinking on this. Who told them this was worth arguing?
maybe people who think that whether you believe in a sky fairy should have absolutely no bearing on where you go to school.
what if your options were jewish and islamic schools? daily malefest.