Application for judicial review of the decision to adopt London Safety Plan 5. The decision had been made following a direction from the Mayor of London that the third respondent was obliged to follow by law. The Mayor’s direction was based on a recommendation by the London Fire Commissioner.
Held: although the phraseology of the documents made available to the public during the consultation process may have been hard to follow they did confirm what the Commissioner had said. Therefore a large amount of relevant information was fed into the modelling process. The way in which “local risk” was identified was perfectly rational. The language of the supporting documents presented during the consolation process presented challenges but did confirm what the Commissioner had said. The actual influence of the egalitarian approach on the Plan was less potent than the claimant’s contended. The influence of the Commissioner could not be fairly described as irrational. Therefore the claim was dismissed.
Antony White QC and Sarah Hannett were involved in this case.
London Boroughs v The Mayor of London & Ors  EWHC 4142 (Admin)http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/london-boroughs-v-mayor-of-london-others-201213.pdf