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.
10:48 pm
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NHS reorganisation No 3,493,233

Followers of my blog will have seen the NHS question about how many reorganisations have we had. We've yet another. The number of PCTs (Primary Care Trusts) nationally is to halve. This means merging East and North. (and then probably HoB and south). It would be nice if people would stick with one structure. There is a quotation ( Which sadly does not appear to be a true quotation ) We trained hard . . . but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization. But has to have been originated by someone. The web link shown goes through the derivation which appears to be more linked to an anonymous British Soldier WW2 than any Roman or Greek General called by a name perming 2 out of (Gaius, Galus, Petronius and Arbiter). From the...
2 comments
Read more