Skip to main content

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 [2004] 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 [2005] 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 [2005] 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 [2005] 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 [2005] EWHC 1956 (Admin)
    Disqualification changed to Suspension. Not opposed by Standards Board.

  • Livingstone v APE [2007] 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 [2007] 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 [2007] 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.

Comments

David Boothroyd said…
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.

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. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…