BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Chegwyn, R (on the application of) v Standards Board for England [2010] EWHC 471 (Admin) (15 February 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/471.html Cite as: [2010] BLGR 614, [2010] EWHC 471 (Admin), [2011] PTSR 165 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Buy ICLR report: [2011] PTSR 165] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF CHEGWYN | Claimant | |
v | ||
STANDARDS BOARD FOR ENGLAND | Defendant |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MISS WARD appeared on behalf of the Defendant
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"(4) Where an English case tribunal decides that a person has failed to comply with the code of conduct of the relevant authority concerned, it may-
(a) take in respect of him any action authorised by regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this sub-section, or
(b) decide to take no action against him.
(5) Regulations made under subsection (4) may in particular-
(a) enable the tribunal to censure the person.
(b) enable it to suspend, or partially suspend, the person from being a member or co-opted member of the authority concerned for a limited period.
(c) enable it to disqualify the person, for a period not exceeding five years, for being or becoming (whether by election or otherwise) a member of that or any other relevant authority."
"9.1 an honestly held (although mistaken) view that the action concerned did not constitute a failure to follow the provision of the Code of Conduct, particularly where such a view has been formed after taking appropriate advice.
9.2 a members' previous record of good service.
9.3 substantiated evidence that the member's actions have been affected by-ill health.
9.4 recognition that there has been a failure to follow the Code; cooperation in rectifying the effects of that failure; an apology to affected persons where that is appropriate, self-reporting of the breach by a member.
9.5 compliance with the Code since the events giving rise to the determination.
9.6 some actions, which may have involved a breach of the Code, may nevertheless have had some beneficial effect for the public."
"10.1 dishonesty.
10.2 continuing to deny the facts despite clear contrary evidence.
10.3 seeking unfairly to blame other people.
10.4 failure to heed appropriate advice or warnings or previous findings of a failure to follow the provisions of the code.
10.5 persisting with a pattern of behaviour which involves repeatedly failing to abide by the provisions of the code."
"Disqualification is the most severe of the sanctions available to the Case Tribunal. This option is likely to be appropriate where:
16.1 the Respondent has deliberately sought personal gain (for either him or herself or some other person) at the public expense by exploiting his or her membership of the body subject to the Code of Conduct.
16.2 the Respondent has deliberately sought to misuse his or her position in order to disadvantage some other person.
16.3 the Respondent has deliberately failed to abide by the Code of Conduct, for example as a protest against the legislative scheme of which the Code forms part. Members of local authorities are expected to uphold the law. Where the Code has been deliberately breached to reflect the Respondent's opposition to the principles underlying the legislation, the Case Tribunal is likely to think of a disqualification of one year.
16.4 there have been repeated breaches of the Code of Conduct by the respondent.
16.5 the Respondent has misused power or public assets for political gain.
16.6 the Respondent has misused council property.
16.7 the Respondent has committed a criminal offence punishable by a sentence of three months or more imprisonment."
"Whereas a disqualification will apply to membership of all authorities to which the Act applies, suspension will be limited to precluding the respondent from participating as a member of the authority whose Code has been found to be broken. If the facts giving rise to the breach of the Code are such as to render the Respondent entirely unfit for public office then disqualification rather than suspension is likely to be the more appropriate sanction."
"4.3.3 The motion was intended to reconsider the decision to grant the Respondent permission in principle to hold a music festival. The Respondent was the main festival organiser, employee, sole director and owner of the company which organised and ran the Stokes Bay music festival. The respondent and his company handled and were responsible for all the finances relating to the festival and he was the person with whom the council was proposing to enter into a land licence agreement for the staging of the festival. According to the Respondent, at the time of the council meeting, the cost of staging the music festival was about £270,000.
4.3.4 The Respondent therefore had a personal interest in the motion. The motion under consideration affected the Respondent's employment and business and any decision in relation to the Stokes Bay music festival might reasonably be regarded as affecting his well-being or financial position to a greater extent than the majority of-other council tax payers, ratepayers or inhabitants of the electoral division or ward affected by the decision."
"[WP] took the view that this was an extremely serious case which went to the very heart of ethical framework within which local government must operate. The underlying principles behind the legislation are to encourage and impose certain minimum standards of behaviour in respect of local government councils. The Code of Conduct and general principles of conduct expected by elected members set out in the Relevant Authorities (General Principles) Order 2001 attempt to ensure that members of the public can have confidence in the probity of conduct of those who are elected to represent them and, in particular they will act in the public's interest rather than their own personal interest."
"The case tribunal found that this was a blatant and deliberate disregard for the Code of Conduct which would undermine the confidence the members of the public had in the integrity of the council, particularly as this conduct came from somebody with such seniority and experience."
"However, the Case Tribunal also took the view that these breaches were of such a serious nature in that the respondent had deliberately sought to misuses his position and had deliberately failed to abide by the Code, that, notwithstanding the Respondent's recent re-election to Hampshire County Council, it was considered that the most severe of sanctions, being disqualification was appropriate and proportionate here."
"Disqualification of the respondent for being or becoming a member of the relevant authority concerned or any other relevant authority for a period not exceeding five years."