According to the most recent data, two million people in London are living with illegal levels of air pollution. Nitrogen dioxide is one of the main pollutants and road transport is estimated to be responsible for 50% of total emissions. The consequences of high nitrogen dioxide levels are frightening and air pollution in London has caused an estimated 9,400 deaths per year. However there is some good news: nitrogen dioxide levels do now appear to be falling and could reach legal limits within 6 years. This is thanks to new policies being introduced to tackle this public health emergency, the most prominent of which being London’s world leading Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) which came into effect in central London on 8 April 2019.
In our KN Green Week blog, Can law save the world?, we considered the power of judicial review as a weapon in the fight to save the environment. In particular, we highlighted the effectiveness of the three judicial reviews brought by ClientEarth over 8 years challenging the government’s failure to comply with its obligations under Directive 2008/50/EC (the Air Quality Directive). We consider in more detail here the success of these judicial reviews in holding the UK government to account over its record on air pollution and hastening the arrival of the ULEZ in London.
The Air Quality Directive
The Air Quality Directive was an EU Directive which came into force on 11 June 2008. It set legally binding limits and target values for concentrations of major air pollutants.
Article 13 required Member States not to exceed limit values of nitrogen dioxide set for 1 January 2010.
Article 22 made provisions for Member States to postpone deadlines for conformity with nitrogen dioxide levels by a maximum of 5 years on the condition that an air quality plan (AQP) is established in accordance with Article 23.
Article 23 provided for air quality plans to set out appropriate measures to ensure any periods in which limits for pollutants are exceeded are kept as short as possible.
first judicial review: 2011 – 2015
By 2010, the UK Government had not complied with these requirements. In response to a letter before action from ClientEarth, the Government indicated in December 2010 that AQPs were being drawn up for Greater London and other non-compliant zones and that these plans would demonstrate how compliance would be achieved by 2015. When draft AQPs were published on 9 June 2011, they showed that in 17 zones, including Greater London, compliance was expected to be achieved after 2015.
The first judicial review was issued on 28 July 2011 seeking declarations that the draft AQPs did not comply with the requirements of EU law and that the UK was in breach of its obligations under Article 13 of the Air Quality Directive. The Government argued that it was under no obligation, under Article 22(1), to put a plan for reducing nitrogen dioxide levels below limit values to the Commission by 1 January 2015.
When he heard the claim on 13 December 2011 ( EWHC 3623 (Admin)), Mr Justice Mitting agreed with the Government and refused to make any mandatory orders or declarations, finding that Article 22(1) was discretionary. He observed:
It is clear from all I have seen that any practical requirement on the United Kingdom to achieve limit values in its major agglomerations, in particular in London, would impose upon taxpayers and individuals a heavy burden of expenditure which would require difficult political choices to be made. It would be likely to have a significant economic impact.” - Para. 15  EWHC 3623 (Admin)
Mr Justice Mitting agreed that the Government was in breach of its Article 13 obligations but did not agree that it was necessary for him to declare that this was so.
ClientEarth appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal where Laws LJ agreed with Mr Justice Mitting that Article 22 was discretionary ( EWCA Civ 897). The Supreme Court heard the appeal on 7 March 2013 and granted the declaration that the UK government was in breach of Article 13. The Court made a reference to the CJEU seeking answers to questions of:
- whether or not a Member State is obliged to seek a postponement of the deadline in accordance with Article 22;
- if so, can a Member State be relieved of that obligation?
- If not, and no application under Article 22 is made, does Article 23 apply?
- What remedies must the national court provide? (Para. 39  UKSC 25)
The UK’s submissions to the CJEU in these proceedings made mention for the first time to what they called a “game changing” proposal by the Major of London for the ULEZ in central London from 2020.
In a judgment dated 14 November 2014 (Case C-404/13) the CJEU replied that:
- Article 22(1) does require a member state to apply for a postponement and establish an AQP where it cannot comply with limits for nitrogen dioxide levels.
- Where a member state has not complied with Article 13 or applied for a postponement under Article 22(1) it is for the national court to take necessary measures to ensure the national authority establishes an AQP.
With this judgment, it was back to the Supreme Court ( UKSC 28) where the Court noted developments which had occurred since the claim had last been before them. In February 2014, the European Commission had launched formal infringement proceedings against the UK for failure to meet the nitrogen dioxide limit values. The CJEU made clear in their ruling that this enforcement action did not detract from the responsibility of the domestic courts for enforcement of the Directive. In light of this, it was “untenable” for the Supreme Court to agree with the High Court and Court of Appeal that compliance was a matter for the Commission.
The Supreme Court accordingly issued “a mandatory order requiring the Secretary of State to prepare new air quality plans under article 23(1), in accordance with a defined timetable, to end with delivery of the revised plans to the Commission not later than 31 December 2015”. - Para 35  UKSC 28
Second judicial review: October 2016
Following the decision of the Supreme Court, on 17 December 2015 Defra published the Government’s 2015 AQP which addressed the need to reduce nitrogen dioxide emissions. ClientEarth sought a declaration that the 2015 AQP, like its predecessor, failed to comply with Article 23(1) of the Directive and sought an order quashing the AQP. Defra opposed the claim and the Mayor of London joined as an interested party in support of ClientEarth. This second judicial review was heard on 18 and 19 October 2016  EWHC 2740 (Admin).
ClientEarth argued that the AQP was unlawful for two reasons:
- The Government was not complying with the requirements of Article 23 to achieve compliance in as short a time as possible.
- The Government was putting considerations of cost, political sensitivity and administrative difficulties ahead of the Directive’s primary purpose of protecting human health.
The Mayor of London argued that he needed to be granted additional powers and funding from central government.
This second time round, ClientEarth had a lot more success in the Administrative Court. In his judgment, Mr Justice Garnham rejected the government’s arguments that cost could justify an extension of the target date for compliance and criticised the government for its failure to ensure compliance as soon as possible. The 2015 AQP was quashed and the Government ordered to draft a new one. There was no appeal by Defra.
Third judicial review: February 2018
On 26 July 2017 Defra published the third AQP in purported compliance with Mr Justice Garnham’s order. This AQP was also challenged by ClientEarth via a judicial review and again they were successful  EWHC 315 (Admin).
The challenge this time was on the grounds that a substantial number of local authorities were unaccounted for. Mr Justice Garnham agreed with ClientEarth that the government was failing in its obligations by simply asking local authorities to take action rather than requiring them to comply. Justice Garnham concluded (Para 108  EWHC 315 (Admin)) with an unequivocal assessment of the government’s failures on air pollution since 2010:
It is now eight years since compliance with the 2008 Directive should have been achieved. This is the third, unsuccessful, attempt the Government has made at devising an AQP which complies with the Directive and the domestic Regulations. Each successful challenge has been mounted by a small charity, for which the costs of such litigation constitute a significant challenge. In the meanwhile, UK citizens have been exposed to significant health risks.”
The power of judicial review
Although the UK Government is yet to comply with the Air Quality Directive, they have taken steps to achieve compliance sooner than their previous plans allowed for and the introduction of the ULEZ zone in London a year earlier than originally planned is just one example of the acceleration of attempts to achieve compliance in light of the rulings of the courts.
It is not just Londoners who have benefited from the ClientEarth successes. As a result of the February 2018 ruling, the UK Government was forced to create a supplement to their 2017 Plan legally directing 33 local authorities outside London to conduct feasibility studies to bring forward compliance with nitrogen dioxide limits by 2021.
Without ClientEarth’s persistence over 8 years, it is hard to imagine that the UK Government would have put these measures in place or at least put them in place by now. Not only did ClientEarth have to issue 3 expensive judicial reviews, but there also had to be an intervention from the CJEU to get the domestic courts to agree to hold the UK Government to account. The domestic courts initially agreed with the Government’s arguments that the expense and difficulty of putting measures like the ULEZ in place were relevant factors in justifying their failure to take the Air Quality Directive seriously enough.
When (or if) we leave the EU, we will have to hope that in any future environmental challenges the English courts will properly challenge and scrutinise the Government’s compliance with its environmental obligations.
Giving Something Back Team
Latest blogs & news
Case Note – challenging the Court’s jurisdiction in judicial review proceedings: R (Girgis) v Joint Committee on Intercollegiate Examinations  EWHC 2256 (Admin)
The Administrative Court of England & Wales has recently considered a challenge to its jurisdiction to hear a judicial review claim on the basis (asserted by the defendant) that the claim should be heard at the Court of Session in Scotland. As explained below, the challenge was unsuccessful, but the case is interesting not just because of the Court’s conclusion on the substantive issue but also because of His Honour Judge Simon’s approach to the “technical” (procedural) issues the case gave rise to.
Earlier this year, changes to Practice Direction 54A (covering judicial review) and 54B (covering urgent applications) came into effect. This blog will consider the impact that the changes have had on the procedure for judicial review, before turning to a recent example of the perils of failing to follow the rules.
Can you devise an effective ouster clause to exclude a category of decision making from judicial review?
The Judicial Review and Courts Bill contains a new ‘ouster clause’ designed to prevent judicial review of the Upper Tribunal’s decisions on certain applications for permission to appeal against decisions of the First-Tier Tribunal. This blog explores why drafting legislation to restrict judicial review is so difficult.
R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 37 and R (BF (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 38
Two linked Supreme Court judgments provide a reminder to claimants that challenges to policies should focus on whether the policies authorise or approve violations of the law. The court acknowledges that policies are issued to promote practical objectives and the standards set for reviewing them must not be unduly demanding.
Long awaited reforms to judicial review were revealed yesterday by Robert Buckland in his Judicial Review and Courts Bill. Thankfully the proposals to suspend quashing orders and limit their retrospective effect retain all-important judicial discretion and, at face value, are milder than feared. However, the decision to exclude the review of Upper Tribunal permission-to-appeal decisions (so called “Cart JRs”) is more troubling, marking the return of ouster clauses and possibly setting the groundwork for the removal of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court in future legislation.
On 18 March 2021 the government published the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) and began a public consultation on reforms to judicial review. This blog provides some initial thoughts on these important developments. For background on the IRAL see our introductory blog here.
Supreme Court rules that Nigerian communities can have their case against Shell heard in the English courts
This morning (12 February 2021) the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in Okpabi & others v Royal Dutch Shell (“Okpabi”), a case concerning mass oil pollution in the Niger Delta. Judgment is in favour of the claimants, communities representing over 40,000 affected citizens of Nigeria, whose claim against oil conglomerate Shell and its Nigerian subsidiary can now be heard in the English courts.
Striking a balance or tipping the scales? The Independent Review of Administrative Law and the possible reform of Judicial Review
On 31 July 2020 the Government launched an Independent Review of Administrative Law (‘the Review’). The panel of lawyers and academics, chaired by former Minister of State for Civil Justice Lord Edward Faulks QC (‘the Panel’), has been tasked with examining the potential need for reform of Judicial Review and to ‘consider whether the right balance is being struck between the rights of citizens to challenge executive decisions and the need for effective and efficient government.’
Office for Students refusal to register higher education provider unlawful due to failure to delegate and ‘secret policy’
The Bloomsbury Institute was fighting to survive financially after the Office for Students refused its application for registration. It brought a judicial review challenge which revealed that an unpublished policy had been followed. The policy had been formulated by an official who did not have the power to make the relevant decisions.
International Court of Justice and UN General Assembly do not alter the outcome of the Chagos Islands challenge
In a February 2019 Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice stated that, under international law, the decolonisation of Mauritius by the UK has never been lawfully completed and the UK must therefore “end its administration” of the Chagos islands.
Interpreting legislation is both an art and a science. This recent Court of Appeal case illustrates how judges do it in the context of the statutory scheme used to introduce controversial voter ID pilot schemes.
World Environment Day - The green lining of the Coronavirus lockdown… and how to continue to ease our environmental impact
As the UK settles into its tenth week of lockdown, we are starting to see glimpses of hope that we might soon be back to work, the gym, and school. But while we are all looking forward to enjoying things we did before lockdown, we shouldn't be so hasty to revert back to all of our old ways.
The High Court confirms that unincorporated associations may participate in both judicial review claims and statutory challenges
Even if it is generally more straightforward for the claimant to be a legal person, this judgment may give confidence to the likes of amateur sports clubs and campaigning pressure groups considering challenging the exercise of public power.
Friday 13 December 2019 will be remembered as the day the Conservatives won their biggest majority since the 1980s and finally obtained the dominance required to complete the Article 50 process and take the UK out of the EU.
Enemies of the constitution? The words of those attacking independent judges are corrosive and wrong
Everyone has an opinion on yesterday’s decision of the UK Supreme Court. Boris Johnson said on television that he profoundly disagreed with it. Jacob Rees-Mogg reportedly called it a ‘constitutional coup’ on a cabinet conference call. Former Lord Chancellor Michael Gove was distinctly equivocal about it when interviewed on the Today programme. Laura Kuenssberg reported on Twitter that a No 10 source said ‘the Supreme Court is wrong and has made a serious mistake in extending its reach into these political matters’. The fact these people all claim they will still ‘respect’ the decision does not detract from the corrosiveness of their sentiments.
The prorogation judicial reviews concerned the constitutional equilibrium between government, parliament and the courts. Today, an 11 member UK Supreme Court panel affirmed its centuries-old supervisory jurisdiction over acts of government and ruled unanimously that Boris Johnson’s government failed to advance any reasonable justification for proroguing parliament. The prorogation was therefore unlawful and ‘never happened’ so parliament is back in the game.
Scotland’s highest court and a senior divisional court of the High Court in England and Wales have reached opposite conclusions about whether the recent decision to prorogue parliament was lawful.
Monday night’s marathon session in Parliament saw a number of issues debated into the small hours and further defeats for the government. While many raised important political and legal issues, one of particular interest to information lawyers, followers of Parliamentary procedure and journalists alike was the endorsement of a “Humble Address” motion brought by former Attorney General, Dominic Grieve.
On 24 July 2019, the High Court handed down judgment in R (on the application of Independent Workers Union Of Great Britain and others) v Mayor Of London  EWHC 1997 (Admin). This case related to the decision in December 2018 by the Mayor of London to remove an exemption and require private hire vehicles (“PHV”) to pay the Congestion Charge from 8 April 2019
In the last week, Philip Alston, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights said the world was increasingly at risk of “climate apartheid” where the wealthy pay to escape the impact of climate change and the rest of the world is left to suffer.