Lashley, R (on the application of) v Broad District Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 16, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 358

Reporting Judge: [2000] EWHC Admin 358

President: Lashley, R (on the application of) v Broad District Council

Linked as:

Extract

Lashley, R (on the application of) v Broad District Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 16, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 358

Case no: co/5011/1999

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

CROWM OFFICE

Royal Courts of justice

Strand, London, wc2a 2ll

Friday 16 June 2000

Before:

his hon MR JUSTICE Munby

-------------------

THE QUEEN

BROAD DISTRICT COUNCIL

EX PARTE BARBARA JUNE LASHLEY

____________________

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of

Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street

London EC4A 2HD

Tel No: 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838

Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

mr GAVIN MILLAR q.c. (INSTRUCTED BY MESSRS sTEEL & sHAMASH) Appeared on behalf of the applicant

Mr christopher baker (Instructed by messrs eversheds) Appeared on behalf of the Respondent

____________________

Judgment

As Approved by the Court

MR JUSTICE MUNBY Friday 16th June 2000

In this application, Mr Gavin Millar QC moves on behalf of the applicant, Barbara June Lashley, for judicial review of a decision of the Standards Committee ("the Committee") of Broadland District Council ("the Council") on 6 December 1999 that her conduct on or about May 1999 (sic) fell short of the highest standards expected of Councillors. The relief sought is

"1 Declarations that

(1) as at 6 December 1999 the Committee was not discharging a statutory function of the Council within the meaning of section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 ("the 1972 Act") and was not therefore a lawfully constituted committee of the Council and/or

(2) there was procedural impropriety in the making of the decision

in consequence of which the decision was null and void.

2 Certiorari to quash the decision."

The application is resisted by Mr Christopher Baker of counsel appearing on behalf of the Council.

I am grateful to Mr Millar and Mr Baker for their careful and helpful arguments in a case which raises an interesting and, as it seems to me, important point on which there is surprisingly little direct authority.

THE FACTS

The applicant has been an elected member of the Council since 1995. She is and was at all material times the leader of the minority Labour group on the Council. John Bryant ("Mr Bryant") was at all material times the Chief Executive of the Council and in this capacity acted as the Head of the Paid Service and Monitoring Officer. Two other officers played an important part in events: Trevor Johnson ("Mr Johnson"), the Corporate Services Manager, and Stephen Fennell ("Mr Fennell"), the Personnel and Central Services Manager. I should also mention Martin Thrower ("Mr Thrower"), who as I understand it worked in Mr Johnson's department, and Jennifer Harman ("Miss Harman"), who was Mr Bryant's personal assistant

In February 1999 the Council set up the Committee as a full standing committee of the Council, though at this stage the Committee was only empowered to make "recommendations" to the Council following investigations into allegations of misconduct by Councillors.

On 6 May 1999, which was a Thursday, elections to the Council took place. The result was such that if the Conservative group was to retain control of the Council following the elections, and so avoid a hung council, a former member of that group, Councillor Procter, who had been returned as a member in the elections had to be restored to membership of the group. During the Friday, 7 May, there was doubt about whether this would happen. According to the applicant, Mr Bryant instructed Mr Johnson to delay the calculation and notification of the statutory committee allocations for the Council, in order to give the Conservative group more time to resolve the question of Councillor Procter's membership of the group.

At the close of business on the Friday Mr Johnson telephoned the applicant to inform her that the committee allocations were not yet available. The applicant took the view that she needed the allocations so as to be able to report to a meeting of her newly elected Labour group that evening and she accordingly pressed Mr Johnson for an ...

See the full content of this document