Standing, discrimination, bias and the PSED in judicial review of a public appointment

Article summary

Public Law analysis: Two campaigning organisations (the Good Law Project (GLP) and Runnymede Trust (RT)) bought judicial review proceedings against the policies and processes behind three public appointments. The appointments were not subject to open competition and were awarded to individuals known to the decision-maker. The claimants argued this was indirectly discriminatory, because the decision-makers were less likely to know non-white and/or disabled candidates, placing them at a disadvantage. They also alleged breaches of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), and in one instance, apparent bias. The court found neither claimant had standing to bring the indirect discrimination or apparent bias claims. They did not have a particular interest in the decisions nor were representative of an identifiable group in society affected by the decisions. In any event, each appointment process was shaped by its individual circumstances and the urgent need in the context of the pandemic. There were as a matter of fact no potentially discriminatory policies....