Skip to main content

Consultancy Fees and Malicious Falsehood

Something like 18 months after Labour ex-Councillor Tony Kennedy pushed Jim Pendleton into a wall at the Prince of Wales pub in Moseley the Judge has now produced a judgement in the "Malicious Falsehood" case brought against Lib Dem Councillor Martin Mullaney for sending an email saying "Tony Kennedy is going to be Arrested."

As a sort of Small Claims version of Libel none of the outcome is particularly surprising. In this instance Martin gets costs of £60 rather than the £6000 or so he should be due for the amount of work done. Jim Pendleton also gets £50 for loss of earnings.

The case has had its surreal moments like when the Chief Executive of the Pub Chain was suppoenaed to stand as a witness - as if he was there on the night.

A key part of today's press report which has more impact than a row in a pub is the following:
[Mr Kennedy] maintained ... attempts to set up as new business as an independent consultant to developers suffered.
Mr Kennedy said a number of clients backed out of contracts because they feared he would not be able to lobby the planning committee effectively given Coun Mullaney's senior position on it.
He also alleged he began to receive calls from people asking him "to help out in a fight".
Birmingham Post 4th Feb.

What this means is that he was expecting to get "consultancy fees" from developers wanting planning permission, but when Labour lost control of the planning committee they said they would no longer pay him.

Now planning is supposed to be a "quasi judicial" process where there is no party whip and decisions are made on the merits of the case.

Why then would it matter which party controls the planning committee?

I don't think this particular aspect of the case is finished yet.


Jez said…
What this means is that he was expecting to get "consultancy fees" from developers wanting planning permission, but when Labour lost control of the planning committee they said they would no longer pay him.

Alternatively ...

What this mean is that he was expecting to get "consultancy fees" from developers wanting planning permission, but when the vice-chair of the planning committee apparently bore some kind a grudge against him, they said they would no longer pay him.

I know nothing about this case beyond what's been reported in the papers or in Martin's press releases. The only thing I am pretty sure of is that no-one is giving an uncoloured picture.
john said…
Consultancy fees are fees for advice. There is no reason why anyone would know when he had been offering advice.

Fees for lobbying are an entirely different matter.
Jez said…
Consultancy fees are fees for consultancy, surely, which covers pretty much anything and everything.

Actually, I think providing consultancy services to developers sounds suspicious enough without needing any kind of extra innuendo. Now, if it were possibly to employ someone to make life a bit harder for developers ... well, I could probably get behind that :)
john said…
Giving advice is one thing, lobbying is another.
Jez said…
Of course, it is. What I'm saying is that pretty much any activity can end up on an invoice as "consulting services".

Nuancing on precisely what Tony Kennedy meant by "consultancy fees", when his evidence was seems to have been pretty thoroughly trashed by the judge, to imply potential malpractice seems a bit of a stretch.

If there was or is corruption in the council, then I want to know about it. However, rumour and hint and nudge-nudging serves only to feed cynicism of public office. I don't want that; people should be, and should want to be, engaged with government at all levels. As someone who has devoted a great deal of time and effort in elected office, I'd assume you don't want that either.
john said…
The essence is that advice would be OK, but then it would not matter who is in control of the authority.

Paid lobbying is not OK for Planning as no lobbying should work for planning because it is quasi judicial.
Jez said…
Ah, ok, I understand the point you're making now.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…