Privy Council dismisses human rights and discrimination challenge to pastoral scheme

30/07/24

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has today handed down judgment on the first appeal against a draft pastoral scheme to have been granted leave in more than 20 years. The appeal was brought by All Saints Spring Park Parochial Church Council (“the PCC”) and the incumbent of All Saints Spring Park against a draft pastoral scheme approved by the Church Commissioners (“the Commissioners”). The draft pastoral scheme would dissolve the parish of All Saints Spring Park in Croydon and dispossess its incumbent as a consequence. The PCC and the incumbent contended that the draft scheme would contravene human rights law and the public sector equality duty, as a result of alleged indirect racial discrimination, and that the draft scheme was in any event flawed on its merits.

The Board unanimously concluded that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction as a result of a series of procedural mishaps. The PCC lacked standing to appeal under the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011 (“the Measure”) because it had failed to make timely written representations to the Commissioners about the draft scheme. In addition, both the PCC and the incumbent had failed to give valid notice to the Registrar of the Privy Council of their intention to seek leave to appeal within the time period permitted by the Measure. A purported notice given by their solicitors, which did not identify their clients, was insufficient. The Measure left no doubt that a failure to serve a valid notice within the permitted period deprived the Board of jurisdiction.

Had the merits of the appeal arisen, the Board would not have allowed the appeal. On the question of general public importance raised in the appeal, the Board indicated that the Commissioners did not act as a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 or the public sector equality duty when exercising their functions under the Measure. In addition, the Commissioners’ decision to make the draft scheme did not involve any unlawful racial discrimination, or failure to take into account the needs of minority ethnic communities, as alleged by the Appellants. There was in any event a compelling case in support of the draft scheme.

The judgment of the Board ([2024] UKPC 23) is available here.