Question
The Lingard Report, (which WBC has decided not to place on its website, but is available to anyone who contacts WBC), was ordered by the previous Leader of the Council following the Court of Appeal Criminal Division’s decision to uphold the decision of Reading Crown Court to halt the HHS breach of enforcement trial. In the opinion of the Reading Crown Court Judge, particular WBC Councillors and officials had committed abuse of power in the course of bringing the case to Reading Crown Court rendering the case against HHS “unfair and unjust”. The trial accordingly collapsed.
In her summing up at the Court of Appeal Criminal Division hearing into WBC’s appeal against the decision of Reading Crown Court, Lady Justice Hallett declared:
“[The Reading Crown Court] Judge’s finding that WBC had induced Mr Scott to act to his detriment and then taken advantage of the situation, in our view, must stand.”
This finding of fact had been established at Reading and confirmed by the Court of Appeal. Only a successful appeal by WBC to the Supreme Court could overturn the Reading Crown Court and the Court of Appeal. Such an appeal has not been made by WBC.
The terms of reference for the Lingard investigation were to assess whether, in the light of the two courts’ decisions, particular Councillors, including the current Leader and Deputy Leader, and particular Officials were guilty of maladministration. Additionally, Mr Lingard was invited by WBC to review various issues including the judgements of Reading Crown Court and the Court of Appeal.
The Lingard Report has openly, disrespectfully, and unlawfully challenged and rejected the opinions of both the Crown Court and the Court of Appeal. Lingard has declared that the courts were wrong to find that WBC unjustly and unfairly induced Mr Scott to withdraw a crucial appeal. Lingard has said that the courts had based their conclusions on “supposition and a lack of clear evidence”. It is simply not permissible for Lingard to challenge and discredit the courts’ rulings. As a result, the Lingard report has discredited itself and lacks any merit.
Lingard has turned out to be a re-run of the evidence presented at Reading Crown Court and the disrespect and contempt shown by Lingard towards the courts is, in my view, absolutely unacceptable and the Report and, indeed, Mr Lingard, may now be subject to legal intervention and possible withdrawal. The Lingard Report has thus been a waste of WBC residents’ council tax.
On top of this, Mr Lingard has disclosed that he was briefed by WBC last year to investigate concerns by Reading Crown Court about a shortage of evidence supplied by WBC in the early stages of WBC’s prosecution of HHS. I have been advised – and surprised - that last year’s report by Mr Lingard is not available because it never existed. In short, Mr Lingard’s independence - fundamental to the integrity and credibility of his investigation - has been materially compromised.
The present report contains over 300 redactions ostensibly to protect the identification of the individuals involved. The redactions are absurd and pointless because the Officials are identifiable by their job titles and their personal identities are shown on the WBC website. The Councillors are equally easily identifiable. But, far more significantly, 11 complete paragraphs of evidence mainly from two Councillors, Mr Halsall and Mr Kaiser, have been deleted from the original Report delivered to WBC in July. Either they, or WBC, or both are determined that the whole truth should not be made known.
Whilst these 11 redactions remain in place, the Lingard Report is worthless because everybody else - be they members of this Council, the officials and staff who run WBC, and the residents of the Borough – are prevented from knowing what Mr Halsall and Mr Kaiser clearly regard as something which must be kept secret.
Having put the issue into its appropriate context, here is my question:
Bearing in mind:
Minutes:
Question
The Lingard Report, (which WBC has decided not to place on its website, but is available to anyone who contacts WBC), was ordered by the previous Leader of the Council following the Court of Appeal Criminal Division’s decision to uphold the decision of Reading Crown Court to halt the HHS breach of enforcement trial. In the opinion of the Reading Crown Court Judge, particular WBC Councillors and officials had committed abuse of power in the course of bringing the case to Reading Crown Court rendering the case against HHS “unfair and unjust”. The trial accordingly collapsed.
In her summing up at the Court of Appeal Criminal Division hearing into WBC’s appeal against the decision of Reading Crown Court, Lady Justice Hallett declared:
“[The Reading Crown Court] Judge’s finding that WBC had induced Mr Scott to act to his detriment and then taken advantage of the situation, in our view, must stand.”
This finding of fact had been established at Reading and confirmed by the Court of Appeal. Only a successful appeal by WBC to the Supreme Court could overturn the Reading Crown Court and the Court of Appeal. Such an appeal has not been made by WBC.
The terms of reference for the Lingard investigation were to assess whether, in the light of the two courts’ decisions, particular Councillors, including the current Leader and Deputy Leader, and particular Officials were guilty of maladministration. Additionally, Mr Lingard was invited by WBC to review various issues including the judgements of Reading Crown Court and the Court of Appeal.
The Lingard Report has openly, disrespectfully, and unlawfully challenged and rejected the opinions of both the Crown Court and the Court of Appeal. Lingard has declared that the courts were wrong to find that WBC unjustly and unfairly induced Mr Scott to withdraw a crucial appeal. Lingard has said that the courts had based their conclusions on “supposition and a lack of clear evidence”. It is simply not permissible for Lingard to challenge and discredit the courts’ rulings. As a result, the Lingard report has discredited itself and lacks any merit.
Lingard has turned out to be a re-run of the evidence presented at Reading Crown Court and the disrespect and contempt shown by Lingard towards the courts is, in my view, absolutely unacceptable and the Report and, indeed, Mr Lingard, may now be subject to legal intervention and possible withdrawal. The Lingard Report has thus been a waste of WBC residents’ council tax.
On top of this, Mr Lingard has disclosed that he was briefed by WBC last year to investigate concerns by Reading Crown Court about a shortage of evidence supplied by WBC in the early stages of WBC’s prosecution of HHS. I have been advised – and surprised - that last year’s report by Mr Lingard is not available because it never existed. In short, Mr Lingard’s independence - fundamental to the integrity and credibility of his investigation - has been materially compromised.
The present report contains over 300 redactions ostensibly to protect the identification of the individuals involved. The redactions are absurd and pointless because the Officials are identifiable by their job titles and their personal identities are shown on the WBC website. The Councillors are equally easily identifiable. But, far more significantly, 11 complete paragraphs of evidence mainly from two Councillors, Mr Halsall and Mr Kaiser, have been deleted from the original Report delivered to WBC in July. Either they, or WBC, or both are determined that the whole truth should not be made known.
Whilst these 11 redactions remain in place, the Lingard Report is worthless because everybody else - be they members of this Council, the officials and staff who run WBC, and the residents of the Borough – are prevented from knowing what Mr Halsall and Mr Kaiser clearly regard as something which must be kept secret.
Having put the issue into its appropriate context, here is my question:
Bearing in mind:
Answer
Thank you very, very, much for that very, very, long question.
My short response is that I do not accept that the Lingard Report should be scrapped.
You make some serious allegations about Mr Lingard’s independence and state that his report is unlawful, both of which the Council would strongly refute.
As one of the residents who expressed concerns about the Court of Appeal judgement the Council has worked closely with you, and at length, from the start of the year which has included you meeting with the Chief Executive and also speaking to Mr Lingard during his review. The Council has endeavoured to be open with you and listened to your concerns and at no time prior to you reading Mr Lingard’s report did you raise concerns about his independence.
You question Mr Lingard’s independence because of his involvement in the review of the email searches conducted towards the end of 2017, a fact which he discloses himself in the report in Section 14(3).
The two tasks that he undertook for the Council were entirely separate from each other and stood alone, and in reaching his conclusions on the Hare Hatch matter he placed no reliance on his conclusions in relation to the earlier matter. The Monitoring Officer has spoken with Mr Lingard who confirms this.
With regard to redactions in the report, the Council has a duty of care to protect the personal information of its staff. This is standard practice but I acknowledge that this makes it slightly more difficult to read the report. However, to call it “worthless” is an exaggeration. Please acknowledge that the Executive Summary of the report is not subject to any redaction and transparently sets out a balance of conclusions including the learning of lessons in terms of procedure and, in particular, the proper documentation of negotiations and the management of complex cases. These lessons are valuable to the Council and will help us to improve our management of similar cases in the future.
Supplementary Question
Mr Lingard wrote in paragraph14.8 on page 36 “It became clear to me during the course of my enquiries that none of the Councillors professed or indeed had any knowledge of planning law and procedure”.
You say you were doing your best in the press releases being issued to resolve the planning and enforcement issues of your constituent but the courts were overwhelmingly convinced that you and your colleagues were part of an unfair and unjust set of actions, conduct and behaviour and Mr Lingard found that you had no knowledge of planning law and procedure. Then you have insisted that key elements of your investigation interviews should be kept secret. Your defence of your conduct, such that it is, is in tatters.
Accordingly it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that you are unfit to uphold the integrity of the position you hold as Council Leader and Councillor Kaiser as your deputy. Under such circumstances will you and Councillor Kaiser tell me and the Members present tonight, and the residents of the Borough, why you should be seriously considering standing down as Leader and Deputy Leader?
Supplementary Answer
As this is in effect an affair of the Monitoring Officer he will give you a reply in writing.