The following is taken from a report by journalist Ashley Bernard, which appeared in The Northern Echo yesterday 30th March.
Charity and residents of village for learning disabled people at loggerheads of judicial review application outcome
An application for a judicial review by learning disabled residents of a North Yorkshire care village about a breach of their human rights has been refused.
The Administrative Court in London refused to proceed with the case involving the dismantling of the current living arrangements at Botton, in Danby Dale, by charity Camphill Village Trust, where residents live in homes with carers, known as co-workers.
The residents – Daniel Francis, Lucinda Riis-Johannessen, and Tracey Knight – claim the changes are a breach of their rights under article eight of the European Convention of Human Rights that everyone has the right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence.
The honourable Mr Justice Jeremy Baker refused the application. However, both parties have interpreted this conclusion in their favour.
Helen Tucker of Anthony Collins Solicitors, the law firm appointed by Camphill Village Trust, said: “As a charity, CVT seeks to avoid legal disputes where possible.
“In this instance, the charity trustees had no option but to respond urgently to the claim brought against them.”
She added that the court decided the claim was “unarguable” as the charity had made an “evaluative decision” as to how it could most effectively meet its obligations to the learning disabled people it supports.
She said: “This came as a relief to our client and a vindication of the work being done by the charity’s staff and trustees.
“They are working hard to ensure the charity meets all regulatory requirements in a way that meets the needs of the people it works with.”
However, a spokeswoman for the Botton residents said: “The court has in fact confirmed that the learning disabled people’s rights have been breached by CVT, and the case is going ahead on April 15 before the Queen’s Bench at the High Court, London.
“Interim relief has also been granted by the judge, and is even more extensive than that of a previous injunction of March 13, as it now covers the co-workers as well as the three villagers – so CVT is prohibited from terminating the residents’ or co-workers’ living arrangements.
“Leave to apply for a judicial review was declined by a single judge, and the residents have the option of renewing the application and have done so.”
Mr Justice Baker’s reasons for refusal were: “In view of the continuing duty of care upon the defendant to supply the complainant’s care needs, it is unarguable that the claimants’ article eight rights are breached by the defendant’s evaluative decision to fulfil that duty by the proposed alteration in the co-worker’s residential arrangements.”
Below is a selection of the comments received in response and published on the Northern Echo website :
I found this on the action for botton site:- ‘Judicial review was declined on the written application, which was to be expected as to grant JR in the context of a charity would be an exception with charities not being a public body in the statutory sense. The judge extended the injunction and has offered Bindmans an opportunity to make their case in an oral hearing which will take place soon.’ The judge obviously thought it was an important matter to offer a proper hearing to answer the question.
CVT is a Charity that finds itself in the HIGH COURT having to defend TWO separate cases at the same time, one for breaching the human rights of the disabled people ‘at the heart of everything we do’ AND one for breaching its own proud founding principles. Nobody can predict the outcome of this and we should not view this as a match and celebrate each point scored, but try and remain a little dignified about it.
Gotta love CVT. Whilst they are correct that the permission is refused, the ruling states “In view of the continuing duty upon the defendant to provide for the claimants’ regulated care needs, it is unarguable that the claimants’ article 8 rights are breached by the defendant’s evaluative decision to fulfil that duty by the proposed alteration in the co-workers residential arrangements”.
In true “New Labour Spin” off they go and interpret and paraphrase it in the most positive way they can. Guess they want to ignore the really really minor fact that it states “that the claimants’ article 8 rights ARE breached” by their evaluative decision. Whoops! Well I guess you shouldn’t let minor details such as the English Language get in the way…
What’s that sound I hear in the distance, is it the walls of CVT creaking as they are starting to buckle?!
This is just the first step in securing a judicial review of the CVT. Mr Justice Baker was unequivocal in his criticism of the company “In view of the continuing duty of care upon the defendant to supply the complainant’s care needs, it is unarguable that the claimants’ article eight rights are breached by the defendant’s evaluative decision to fulfill that duty by the proposed alteration in the co-worker’s residential arrangements.” I expect the appeal panel will grant the review, but its the other High Court hearing tomorrow that the CVT should be most worried about. Watch this space for their SECOND High Court legal challenge in as many weeks. This is unheard of for a charity.
Why is it always Huw John the CEO who responds for the CVT trustees who are really responsible for Botton but who have become silent and invisible .We all know what HJ is going to say because he decided in 2011 when he was appointed that he would destroy the voluntary co-worker life sharing model and install low paid help to operate under a strict management regime supporting his enhanced 6 figure salary. Two attempts at mediation have failed because there was no flexibility in his grand plan. Botton was advised by a senior QC that only a high court action could stop the destruction of this intentional community and the irretrievable loss of those dedicated people who created this wonderful village community. A world wide appeal has raised the money to defend Botton against this enforced change. The great majority of Villagers and their parents want to preserve their wonderful village but perhaps until now no-one wants to listen to them . HJ says he is going to preserve our precious Botton community which when he came on the scene was one of 11 such villages with CVT as their landlord. Two Scottish Communities have left CVT and retained their magic, 8 others have been systematically have been ‘cleansed’ of their volunteer co-workers. Botton is on the brink of sharing the same fate. Only those that know and understand the magic of an intentional working community that looks after its own can appreciate the magnitude of the transition from what CVT was only a few years ago to the ‘service provider / service user’ role that has almost consumed it and which only looks good in the brochures , not in the flesh. Thousands of passionate supporters seem unable to withstand the ‘drum beat’ CVT mantra of ‘The people we support are at the heart of all we do ‘even when those same people are crying out for CVT to support its much loved co-workers and their families and not sack them. Lets hope we can rely on British Justice to decide what is in the best interests of all its community members and not be conned by the contrived ‘evidence’ that our communities can only be run by the ‘trained professionals’ whom appeared on our doorsteps only 4 (long) years ago.