Sanity Triumphs! Proposals for Judicial Review Quashed (Surrey Heath Liberal Democrats

Sanity Triumphs! Proposals for Judicial Review Quashed

September 5, 2004 10:15 PM

On Wednesday, 25th August, an Extraordinary Meeting of Surrey Heath Borough Council called by Lib Dem, Labour and Independent Councillors was held to considered two motions. The motions related to the Council's Standard Committee recent decision to seek Judicial Review of the Standards Board for England's decision to find that 8 current Conservative Surrey Heath Councillors had "brought their office or authority into serious disrepute". The councillors in question are Cllrs Gibson, King, Stevenson, Pedder, Pearce, Vivienne Chapman, Hamilton and Illnicki.

The first of the motions expressed regret that the Surrey Heath Standards Committee had sought such judicial review, and called upon them to reconsider their decision. Separately, the motion set a financial limit of £100 on any action for judicial review, and sought to invite the Chairman of the Standards Board for England to meet with the Council to explore their findings.

Lib Dem Cllr Alan Whittart chaired the meeting for the first motion, as the Mayor, Cllr Illnicki, was required to leave the chamber along with the other affected Councillors. Part of the debate was held in confidential session, at the request of Conservative Cllr Sams. The motion was subsequently passed by the Council in full, so effectively killing any expensive action for judicial review.

The second motion criticised the Leader of the Council, Cllr Moira Gibson, for supporting expenditure on Counsel's opinion on the matter of judicial review; called on the councillors concerned to conclude the matter by expressing regret at the Standards Board for England's decision; and requested Cllr King to resign as Portfolio Holder for Regulatory Services (which includes Development Control & Enforcement), as, in the light of the decision of the Standards Board for England's Arbitration Panel to ban him from any decision on planning matters for one year, it was inappropriate for him to hold this post.

Upon the introduction of the second motion, the Chief Executive advised that other members of the Planning Committee should also withdraw from the meeting, for reasons that could not be disclosed in open session. The session was therefore interrupted for a private session with the members concerned. As a result a number of other Councillors also withdrew, though all made clear that they did not accept that they had any prejudicial interest in the matter and were doing so only on the advice of the Chief Executive. One councillor (Cllr Longden) declined the advice and chose to remain in the chamber.

As Cllr Whittart was affected by this advice and left the chamber, the chairmanship of the meeting then fell to Lib Dem Cllr Duncan Clark for the debate on the first part of the second motion, which related to Cllr Gibson's actions. The motion, regretting Cllr Gibson's actions, was carried.

Despite being one of the subjects of the second part of the motion, Cllr Illnicki returned to chair this part of the debate. This was done on the advice of Council officers, and caused some bewilderment amongst members of the public attending. This part of the motion was also carried.

The third part of the motion concerning Cllr King was deemed to be a motion calling for the dismissal and replacement of a member of the Executive, for which a quorum of 75% of council members was required. Due to the absence of many Conservative members, this quorum was not met. Although Opposition members challenged this interpretation, pointing out that the motion was a request only, Cllr Illnicki deferred the motion until a future Council meeting.

Cllr David Whitcroft commented: " This was a meeting that should never have been necessary. The confrontation approach of one public body taking another to court at great expense to the residents of Surrey Heath would have only benefited the lawyers. But sanity has triumphed: the Lib Dems, supported by other opposition groups, have forced the Council to abandon this approach. Hopefully, the Council can use this decision to improve and rebuild its relationship with the Standards Board for England, and enter into a dialogue on such matters rather than threatening legal action.

"We shall be examining further the grounds for deferment of the part of the second motion concerning Cllr King, and I shall be consulting with my colleagues on what future action we may take on this matter."

Surrey Heath Liberal Democrats - working for you, for a better future