[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 >> Gill, R (on the application of) v Ethical Standards Officer [2005] EWHC 1956 (Admin) (26 July 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/1956.html Cite as: [2005] EWHC 1956 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		26th July 2005

1. MR VINALL: My Lord, I appear on behalf of the appellant in this matter. The respondent, the Ethical Standards Officer, is not represented today. Your Lordship should have received a fax from the respondent, dated 22nd July, where we set out the reasons why they ought to appear.
2. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Hang on. I am not sure I have it, unless it is in the bundle.
3. MR VINALL: May I hand your Lordship up another copy?
4. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: I have it. I thought I had seen it.
5. MR VINALL: So my Lord, you will see that the Standards Board now take the view that it is not in the public interest for the appeal to be resisted by the Ethical Standards Officer and they withdraw their skeleton argument they had put in.
6. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: I must confess that I did not find it easy, it is probably my fault, from the reasons they gave, to identify precisely what it was that they were finding as a matter of fact against your client.
7. MR VINALL: Well, I can list them, my Lord. Strictly speaking the appeal is not against the finding.
8. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: I know, but the finding that matters is as far as the package is concerned. As I say, it really it is not at all easy to understand quite what they regarded as a serious incident matter.
9. MR VINALL: Indeed my Lord, we say that there simply are not the findings there to justify a penalty of this severity.
10. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Well, yes. What do you suggest that I do? What are my powers? They are to substitute, are they, or to send it back?
11. MR VINALL: Mr Lord, you can substitute. There is precedent for doing that. There is the case of Murphy.
12. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Presumably the Act indicates what applies there.
13. MR VINALL: Indeed my Lord. The Act at tab 7, section 79, subsection 15, "may appeal to the High Court" and there is nothing--
14. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: About the powers--
15. MR VINALL: About what your Lordship's powers are. But in the case of Murphy, which is at tab 8, Keene LJ substituted--
16. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Well it is obviously sensible that the powers exist otherwise I will waste time by sending back--
17. MR VINALL: My Lord, yes.
18. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: But the trouble is that they do not indicate at all what they would suggest is the correct result. What do you suggest I should do?
19. MR VINALL: Well, clearly it is for me to satisfy you that the Tribunal was wrong.
20. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Well, that is no problem. I accept that they were wrong and, indeed, as I have said, I do not find that in least surprising.
21. MR VINALL: I am grateful for that, my Lord. The position, as you will see, that we have taken in our skeleton argument is that this is a case which is no more serious than the Murphy case.
22. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: That was a suspension?
23. MR VINALL: That was a four-month's suspension. We say, in principle, clearly that sort of occasion would warrant--
24. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: No, that I entirely accept.
25. MR VINALL: So the appropriate sanctions or the available sanctions are a finding of misconduct--
26. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: What is the position since the finding, as far as your client is concerned? Has she been effectively suspended,as it were?
27. MR VINALL: Well, my Lord, she has not at the moment been suspended. As I understand it, she has not been acting as a councillor, she has been seeking other work. The order has not in any sense been stayed.
28. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: No, so there has effectively been, as it were, an absence of seven months. Is that the situation?
29. MR VINALL: My Lord, yes.
30. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Well, it seems to me, in those circumstances, that-- if I were to substitute an suspension, it would presumably run from the date of the original decision.
31. MR VINALL: I would certainly seek to persuade you of that, yes, my Lord.
32. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Well, certainly that is the position of the PNT, for example, that there were statutory provisions there. Obviously I do not want to do anything now which adds to the situation that your client has been in because it seems to me she has been, as it were, out of action for the last seven months. I am content, in those circumstances, to accept your submission that this is no worse than Murphy and that, as a statute, it is therefore appropriate that a relatively short period -- in a sense one has to reflect obviously that there was a degree of seriousness in what happened. Your client now recognises that she was wrong, as I understand it, but she at all times acted in good faith.
33. MR VINALL: Indeed and that is clear from the--
34. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: That I entirely accept. Nonetheless, there was an obvious problem and an obvious conflict and she simply did not see it through as carefully and as clearly as she ought to have done.
35. In those circumstances, it seems to me that the appropriate order would be a suspension of three months, which will be backdated to the sixth week of December, the date of the hearing.
36. MR VINALL: My Lord, I understand we are content with that. We are very grateful.
37. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: All right.
38. MR VINALL: My Lord in those circumstances, I make an application for costs.
39. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Again, that is, on the papers, resisted, is it?
40. MR VINALL: My Lord, no, and your Lordship should have received a statement of costs from my instructing solicitors, dated 25th July.
41. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: I think what I shall do is to make what is perhaps rather usual in these sort of circumstances; I shall make an order for costs but it will not be enforced, because they must have the opportunity to make representations against (a) the order and (b) the amount.
42. MR VINALL: My Lord, in my submission they have had a copy of this statement.
43. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Well, they have, I appreciate that. I do not think that they will get very far but they have not indicated an agreement to pay costs and in those circumstances I think that it is wrong for me to make a final order, without giving them the opportunity to make representations. If they want to make representations, either as to the amount or as to whether they should pay at all, they must do so within 14 days, in writing; serve you, and you would then have seven days to put in any observations of your own in writing and I would consider the matter on the papers so that there is no further hearing.
44. MR VINALL: I am very grateful to your Lordship.
45. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: But you can perhaps indicate to them that it certainly seems to me that the amounts were not unreasonable, having regard to the nature of this claim, and they will, on the face of it, have something of an uphill struggle to avoid paying costs.
46. MR VINALL: I am very grateful, my Lord.
47. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Obviously, if they agree to pay costs, then that is the end of it. All right. Anything else you would like?
48. MR VINALL: Thank you my Lord. That is all.