Question
I believe that you and your Executive colleagues, and indeed the Full Council, need to focus on and consider the implications of what was actually said by three eminent Court of Appeal judges in respect of WBC’s appeal against a ruling from Reading Crown Court halting this Council’s Breach of Enforcement prosecution against eleven defendants associated with Hare Hatch Sheeplands.
At the last Executive Meeting on January 31 Councillor Weeks chose to emphasise the over-arching importance of WBC bringing enforcement action against those who break planning regulations. Quite so, and this is not a matter on which any right-minded person would doubt; it’s motherhood and apple pie. But we are now in a position where it is crucial WBC don’t merely learn lessons (whether or not from an internal enquiry if such could be credibly undertaken).
As background to my question it is crucial to highlight two key points so clearly made in Lady Justice Hackett’s summing up which I personally heard since I attended the entire proceedings:
1. The Court of Appeal was not engaged to conduct a re-run of the prosecution brought by WBC to Reading Crown Court last June. WBC had merely sought to appeal the collapse of the trial at Reading. Councillor Weeks’ statement on January 31 that the Court of Appeal had been “inconsistent” with other WBC prosecutions is thus wholly irrelevant to the HHS issue.
2. The “unjust and unfair” verdict against WBC at Reading Crown Court was upheld without any difficulty by the Court of Appeal despite five grounds of appeal presented by WBC's QC because:
a) damning email evidence of the exchanges between Members and Officers over a lengthy period prior to breach of enforcement proceedings being instigated had been presented at Reading Crown Court, and
b) WBC had failed to follow the Code for Crown Prosecutors as shown by email evidence that WBC was planning to benefit from any Proceeds of Crime related to the case. Under the Code, when an LPA acts as a prosecutor it cannot at the same time be a beneficiary. The Court of Appeal found this failure to follow the Code particularly repugnant given that the defendants, if convicted, could have received jail sentences.
We have to thank the Court of Appeal for assembling and documenting in the 60-minute summing up just what went on in WBC's pursuit of the breach of enforcement action. I think it is relevant to let you know that the Court of Appeal judges took particular exception, expressed when the hearing commenced, to the unprofessional presentation of WBC's evidence bundle mentioning that emails were filed "all over the place" and indexing and tabbing “was in a mess”.
WBC is now permanently tainted by this affair and the Court of Appeal 's decision about WBC is very likely to be quoted in similar future cases in the Crown Court in the UK, the High Court, and the Court of Appeal. That is why you, Councillor McGhee-Sumner, as Leader, need to decide whether you are going to be part of the problem or whether you are going to be the originator of the solution.
Councillor McGhee-Sumner: Given the essential background I have presented, here is my question: will you please give urgent consideration to suspending from office all those Members and Officials named and shamed by the Court of Appeal for a series of actions and events of unacceptable culture and practice - such suspensions would only be lifted after the completion of an internal inquiry whose unredacted report is openly published and fully debated by a Full Council Meeting with contributions from WBC council taxpayers ? It is a simple choice and crucial to your standing as a respected and credible Leader of WBC.
Minutes:
I believe that you and your Executive colleagues, and indeed the Full Council, need to focus on and consider the implications of what was actually said by three eminent Court of Appeal judges in respect of WBC’s appeal against a ruling from Reading Crown Court halting this Council’s Breach of Enforcement prosecution against eleven defendants associated with Hare Hatch Sheeplands.
At the last Executive Meeting on January 31 Councillor Weeks chose to emphasise the over-arching importance of WBC bringing enforcement action against those who break planning regulations. Quite so, and this is not a matter on which any right-minded person would doubt; it’s motherhood and apple pie. But we are now in a position where it is crucial WBC don’t merely learn lessons (whether or not from an internal enquiry if such could be credibly undertaken).
As background to my question it is crucial to highlight two key points so clearly made in Lady Justice Hackett’s summing up which I personally heard since I attended the entire proceedings:
1. The Court of Appeal was not engaged to conduct a re-run of the prosecution brought by WBC to Reading Crown Court last June. WBC had merely sought to appeal the collapse of the trial at Reading. Councillor Weeks’ statement on January 31 that the Court of Appeal had been “inconsistent” with other WBC prosecutions is thus wholly irrelevant to the HHS issue.
2. The “unjust and unfair” verdict against WBC at Reading Crown Court was upheld without any difficulty by the Court of Appeal despite five grounds of appeal presented by WBC's QC because:
a) damning email evidence of the exchanges between Members and Officers over a lengthy period prior to breach of enforcement proceedings being instigated had been presented at Reading Crown Court, and
b) WBC had failed to follow the Code for Crown Prosecutors as shown by email evidence that WBC was planning to benefit from any Proceeds of Crime related to the case. Under the Code, when an LPA acts as a prosecutor it cannot at the same time be a beneficiary. The Court of Appeal found this failure to follow the Code particularly repugnant given that the defendants, if convicted, could have received jail sentences.
We have to thank the Court of Appeal for assembling and documenting in the 60-minute summing up just what went on in WBC's pursuit of the breach of enforcement action. I think it is relevant to let you know that the Court of Appeal judges took particular exception, expressed when the hearing commenced, to the unprofessional presentation of WBC's evidence bundle mentioning that emails were filed "all over the place" and indexing and tabbing “was in a mess”.
WBC is now permanently tainted by this affair and the Court of Appeal’s decision about WBC is very likely to be quoted in similar future cases in the Crown Court in the UK, the High Court, and the Court of Appeal. That is why you, Councillor McGhee-Sumner, as Leader, need to decide whether you are going to be part of the problem or whether you are going to be the originator of the solution.
Councillor McGhee-Sumner: Given the essential background I have presented, here is my question: will you please give urgent consideration to suspending from office all those Members and Officials named and shamed by the Court of Appeal for a series of actions and events of unacceptable culture and practice - such suspensions would only be lifted after the completion of an internal inquiry whose un-redacted report is openly published and fully debated by a Full Council Meeting with contributions from WBC council taxpayers? It is a simple choice and crucial to your standing as a respected and credible Leader of WBC.
Answer
As I am sure you will have heard when my colleague, Simon Weeks, gave his answer to a similar question at the Executive earlier this evening, you will not be surprised by my response.
Wokingham Borough Council is not yet in possession of the Court of Appeal’s transcript and therefore not in a position to comment on the details referenced.
However, I would reiterate my point that focussing on the latest in a long line of court processes misses the point that Wokingham Borough Council has, through a long and sustained effort, protected the Green Belt from unlawful development and upheld the integrity of the planning process. There are always lessons that can be learnt and we are looking at those but let us not lose sight off what this was really about – it is stopping illegal development, which we have done successfully.
Once we receive the judgement, have read it and reviewed it with our lawyers, we will be in a better position to make a decision.
Supplementary Question
The lack of a transcript is due to a Ministry of Justice administration problem. But you do have the benefit of WBC’s QC, Saira Sheikh, who could brief you fully. She was present for every minute of the court case and she, like I did, took extensive notes and you can be fully acquainted with what they say. The transcript will merely confirm it. I do not think that there are any unusual matters that will arise from it.
You want to wait for that, you say, and I cannot deny you that. But, notwithstanding the botched prosecution, botched by the behaviour and manner adopted by Councillor Kaiser and Councillor Halsall together with the Officers named and shamed, despite being supported by internal and external legal advisers who should have known better. Notwithstanding all that, you do not see any need for Councillors’ or Officials’ misconduct to be investigated or for any sanction or penalty to be imposed on those involved?
Supplementary Answer
Given the nature of your complaint against the two Councillors it would be completely inappropriate for me, as Leader, having taken advice from our in-house Barrister, to do anything other than wait for the transcript from the Court of Appeal. I agree with you that the Ministry of Justice is to blame for the delay in receiving this. I have spoken to our in-house Barrister and his view is that nothing untoward has happened in relation to the two Councillors you have mentioned, but we will look at it in detail and we will come back.