Chaos in court as David Cameron’s former Tory council is accused of breaking the law [VIDEO]

DPAC Cameron Court Oxfordshire Council
Support us and go ad-free

There were chaotic scenes on Thursday 17 August as Oxfordshire County Council, the borough in which David Cameron’s former constituency sits, appeared in a central London court. It was there to defend itself in a case which is a legal first. And the case the Tory-run authority had to answer? That its austerity-driven cuts to vital services may have broken the law.

A legal first

The Court of Appeal was hearing the case of Luke Davey. In November, a judge granted the 40-year-old from Oxfordshire a judicial review against the council, following a 42% cut to the amount he received to pay for his care and support. This is because Davey has quadriplegic cerebral palsy, is registered blind, and requires assistance with all of his intimate personal care needs.

But Davey’s case is a legal first, because his lawyers are using the Care Act 2014 to argue that the council has broken the law. Specifically, that Oxfordshire County Council has breached its obligations under the “wellbeing” principle of the act.

Disabled people’s organisation Inclusion London and campaign group Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) are supporting Davey’s case. The groups had organised representatives to support Davey before and during the hearing. And in another legal first, Inclusion London was granted an intervention in the case by the judge: the first time an organisation led by disabled people has been given this privilege.

Peaceful protest

But things didn’t go smoothly for the campaigners.

At first, they gathered outside the main entrance to the courts, raising awareness of both the case and the broader issues facing sick and disabled people in society:

DPAC Davey Case One

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

One campaigner’s banner referenced an UN report which accused successive Conservative-led governments of committing “grave” and “systematic” violations of disabled people’s human rights.

And campaigners like DPAC Steer Group member Nicola Jeffery were also highlighting the closure of the Independent Living Fund (ILF), which had previously supported disabled people to access their communities and maintain their day-to-day lives. But the Conservative government abolished the ILF in 2015:

DPAC Davey Case Two

DPAC Davey Case Three

Accessibility chaos

But there were angry scenes when disabled campaigners, their solicitors and the media tried to enter the court building. Security at first told them they could not go in, as there were “not enough staff on duty” to cope, and they were not willing to open the disabled entrance.

After the intervention of a reporter and several wheelchair users, the court’s security opened up the supposedly ‘accessible’ entrance to the court. But the entrance was barely accessible, and one disabled campaigner was nearly knocked to the ground by a passing cyclist:

Eventually, people got into the court building. But even then, they were (as one disabled campaigner put it) “herded like cattle” along a corridor:

DPAC Davey Case Four

Setting a precedent?

Davey’s case, if successful, could set a precedent, as it’s the first time the Care Act 2014 has been cited in law. The council argues that there were two underlying reasons given for its decision to reduce Davey’s personal budget. Specifically, that:

  • He could spend more time alone without the benefit of a Personal Assistant being present.
  • Davey could and should reduce the amount which he pays to his Personal Assistants.

But his solicitors say that, by cutting his support from £1,651 a week in 2015 to £950 a week now, Oxfordshire County Council has breached Davey’s rights under the wellbeing principle of the act. Specifically, that it will cause/pose:

  • Additional and excessive anxiety to Davey, from having to spend unwanted time alone.
  • The risk of Davey losing his established care team of 18 years.

The wellbeing principle of the Care Act says that a council has a legal duty to “promote” a person’s wellbeing. Specifically:

  • Personal dignity.
  • Physical and mental health and emotional well-being.
  • Protection from abuse and neglect.
  • Control by the individual over day-to-day life.
  • Participation in work, education, training or recreation.
  • Social and economic well-being.
  • Domestic, family and personal relationships.
  • Suitability of living accommodation.
  • The individual’s contribution to society.

Opening the floodgates

The Canary contacted Oxfordshire County Council for comment. It said:

Oxfordshire County Council along with all local authorities, is having to consider carefully how to best meet the needs of those with significant disabilities. It believes it has done so fairly and lawfully for Mr Davey and will continue to do so. We look forward to receiving any guidance from the Court of Appeal in relation to these difficult decisions. The Council is working with Mr Davey and his family to ensure his care needs continue to be met.

The judge will not make their decision immediately. But if the court finds Oxfordshire County Council has breached the wellbeing principle, then it must review Davey’s support package. And aside from that, the case could set a precedent for other people to bring judicial reviews against local authorities.

This is because, as The Canary previously reported, in London alone some councils have cut people’s support by up to 68% since 2015; meaning Davey’s case could open the floodgates for people wanting judicial reviews. And at a time when central government is still cutting welfare, this single case could lead to many more councils ending up in the dock over their abandonment of disabled people.

Get Involved

Support DPAC in its fight for disabled people’s rights.

Featured image Wikimedia/YouTube via and additional images by The Canary/Nicola Jeffery

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us

Comments are closed