Standards Board Cases in Administrative Court
The following appear to be all the Administrative Court decisions relating to Local Government Standards Board cases.
- Murphy v the ESO  EWHC 2377 (Admin) Macclesfield Councillor appeals against suspension of 1 year for involvement in a decision about the ombudsmans report about a planning decision where he had a prejudicial interest. Reduced to 4 months. This is an interesting one as it raises the complex question about the code and planning decisions.
- Adami v ESO  EWHC 1577 (Admin) A North Dorset Case with a successful appeal against a 4 year disqualification where the decision was found to be insufficently well argued.
- Scrivens v ESO  EWHC 529 (Admin) Farnham Town Council , Waverley, Surrey. Appeal dismissed because the question as to whether a Councillor has a personal interest in a matter is objective, not one of the opinion of the Councillor however reasonable that may be.
- Sanders v Kingston  EWHC 1145 (Admin)
Sacking of Tory Leader of Peterborough, who got re-election as an independent before the hearing of the APE and was disqualified as a councillor. Decision that he had broken the code, but should not have been disqualified, but instead suspended from being leader.
- Gill v ESO  EWHC 1956 (Admin)
Disqualification changed to Suspension. Not opposed by Standards Board.
- Livingstone v APE  EWHC 835 (Admin)
Ken Livingstone being very rude to a journalist coming out of a party. Found not to be covered by code of conduct.
- Hare Marcar Bedford  EWHC 835 (Admin)
Independent councillor who made allegations of criminal conduct against officers who failed to prove that a 6 months suspension was "plainly wrong".
- Janik v Standards Board  EWHC 835 (Admin) A case from Slough where an LIP Councillor who didn't turn up tries to use in absentia a medical argument that he was not given a fail trial. Appeal dismissed.
Plus David Boothroyd's Comment:
Note also the Standards Board case APE0241
relating to Paul Dimoldenberg in Westminster, wherein the Standards Board accepted (after legal submissions) that councillors accused of disclosing confidential documents had a public interest defence open to them. Although this finding was accepted at the original hearing rather than imposed through the courts, it made a substantial difference to cases where unauthorized disclosure was involved.