## Facts

- The claimant (Louden) brought a judicial review claim against the Bury School Organisation Committee, a statutory body involved in local school-organisation decisions.
- The challenge targeted a committee decision about school organisation (such as reorganisation, closure, or similar structural change within local education provision).
- The claimant argued that the committee’s decision-making process was legally flawed because some decision-makers had already made up their minds before the formal decision was taken.
- In support, the claimant relied on evidence such as prior observations, public comments, or political statements said to indicate that members favoured a particular outcome in advance.
- The claimant sought an order quashing the committee’s decision on the basis of unlawful pre‑determination (a “closed mind”) and related public law defects.
- The committee resisted the claim, contending that prior expressions of policy views or preliminary preferences did not, without more, establish that members were unwilling to consider the material before them when making the decision.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence that decision-makers had previously expressed views or appeared to favour an outcome was enough to show unlawful pre‑determination (a “closed mind”), making the school-organisation decision unlawful and liable to be quashed.
2. Whether, on the facts, the claimant had shown a sufficient public law basis for the court to grant judicial review relief against the committee’s decision.

## Decision

- The court refused to quash the committee’s decision and dismissed the judicial review claim.
- The court held that the material relied on by the claimant—prior observations or apparent favouring of a particular decision—did not, on its own, demonstrate that the committee had a closed mind at the time it took the decision.
- The court treated the case as falling within the distinction between lawful prior views (including political or policy commitments) and unlawful pre‑determination, and found the evidence did not cross the line into the latter.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review is concerned with legality, not the merits of the decision; the court will not substitute its own view for that of the statutory decision-maker.
- Decision-makers may hold and express policy views (including views associated with party policy or manifesto commitments) without that alone establishing unlawful bias or pre‑determination.
- The legal test focuses on whether the decision-maker approached the matter willing to consider the material before them; strong prior opinions are permissible if the mind is not closed when the decision is made.
- Proof of a “closed mind” requires clear evidence that the outcome was fixed in advance and that consultation or deliberation was not genuine; prior statements or apparent leaning, without more, will generally be insufficient.
- Where a claimant seeks to quash a public decision for pre‑determination, the burden is on the claimant to show that the decision was taken in a manner inconsistent with the duty to consider the decision on its statutory footing.

## Conclusion

The Administrative Court dismissed Louden’s judicial review challenge to the Bury School Organisation Committee’s school-organisation decision, holding that prior comments or apparent favouring of an outcome did not, without stronger proof, establish unlawful pre‑determination or justify quashing the decision.


R. v. Bury, [2002] EWHC 2749