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

Its the long genes that stop working

People who read my blog will be aware that I have for some time argued that most (if not all) diseases of aging are caused by cells not being able to produce enough of the right proteins. What happens is that certain genes stop functioning because of a metabolic imbalance. I was, however, mystified as to why it was always particular genes that stopped working. Recently, however, there have been three papers produced: Aging is associated with a systemic length-associated transcriptome imbalance Age- or lifestyle-induced accumulation of genotoxicity is associated with a generalized shutdown of long gene transcription and Gene Size Matters: An Analysis of Gene Length in the Human Genome From these it is obvious to see that the genes that stop working are the longer ones. To me it is therefore obvious that if there is a shortage of nuclear Acetyl-CoA then it would mean that the probability of longer Genes being transcribed would be reduced to a greater extent than shorter ones.
1 comment
Read more