........when first we practice to deceive” Sir Walter Scott
Returning to legal matters, since the start of the 'exercise' ie the decision by Carmarthenshire County Council to get around the rule that a governing body cannot sue for defamation, it has been interesting to watch senior executive officers slowly but surely digging themselves into a hole.
Over the past couple of years, in amongst all the highly contradictory correspondence from the legal department, and between the Audit Office and the council (the heavily censored FoI response) and even the court judgement, any reasonable person would presume, even without the evidence, that the council unlawfully backed the Head of Planning's libel claim. Even Mr Justice Eady was in some doubt as to who was bringing the claim - and he hadn't seen the stamped document. With the evidence of the stamped document to hand, the case is decisive. In fact not only do the Wales Audit Office know this, but so do various councillors, members of the public, the High Court and of course, the integrity-challenged perjurious officers in County Hall themselves.
The contradictions over legal costs for amending the constitution are interesting. Mr Lyn Thomas, Head of Legal, and Mark James, Chief Executive, have tried to distance the libel case away from the decision to amend. Which is nonsense of course. The Wales Audit Ofice, when (apologetically) questioning the legality of the delegation of such powers, assumed that the amendment was approved at the same time that the Order barring instigation of defamation claims was adopted in 2006 - it wasn't, there was a two year gap, during which time not only was our case ongoing but the council were paying for external legal advice regarding defamation, initially denied in a FoI response to me. Stranger still, despite Mr James qualification in law and offer of 'all the help he can' in November 2006 to the Head of Planning, a contrived 'formal request for funding' was made by the Head of Planning himself in June 2007, this, apparently, was refused, which makes the presence of the document in the Chief Executive's and Resources department two months later so incriminating. Mr Thomas' answer has always to claim complete ignorance of the matter. How convenient.
As for the change in the constitution, I await the response from the Welsh Assembly which doesn't seem quite as forthcoming as the response from Westminster . I don't know why, perhaps the Assembly are wondering what to do...with Mark James advising them on education reform (through Solace), the Head of Planning advising them on planning matters and Meryl Gravell in her various roles as queen of councillors for Wales it could make for awkward lunchtime silences, (three reasons why I am hesitant about voting for further devolution). I do hope that 'Carmarthenshire cronyism' hasn't spread to the Bay. Both the Local Government Act and the cited case law fail to provide a proper legal basis to override the order on indemnities. I also note that in the WAO correspondence reference is made by Mr Lyn Thomas to the provision of libel indemnities to Members as well as officers - his correspondence to me only referred to officers...this casts another shadow onto the legality of the constitution and scheme of delegation. As I have said before, the Welsh Assembly must come to the same opinion as Westminster and I trust they will be in agreement with me that the amendment is, as far as the wider public interest is concerned, morally reprehensible, financially foolhardy and, with further action in mind, legally flawed.
http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.com/2010/07/council-libel-funding-cost-to-public.html
Use 'search' for further posts.
UPDATE 16th SEPTEMBER
I can now confirm that Mr Rhodri Glyn Thomas, (his letter here) has received a reply from the Welsh minister for Local Government. As a consequence of the reply, he has now sent a Freedom of Information request to Carmarthenshire County Council. We will wait for the outcome.
Returning to legal matters, since the start of the 'exercise' ie the decision by Carmarthenshire County Council to get around the rule that a governing body cannot sue for defamation, it has been interesting to watch senior executive officers slowly but surely digging themselves into a hole.
Over the past couple of years, in amongst all the highly contradictory correspondence from the legal department, and between the Audit Office and the council (the heavily censored FoI response) and even the court judgement, any reasonable person would presume, even without the evidence, that the council unlawfully backed the Head of Planning's libel claim. Even Mr Justice Eady was in some doubt as to who was bringing the claim - and he hadn't seen the stamped document. With the evidence of the stamped document to hand, the case is decisive. In fact not only do the Wales Audit Office know this, but so do various councillors, members of the public, the High Court and of course, the integrity-challenged perjurious officers in County Hall themselves.
The contradictions over legal costs for amending the constitution are interesting. Mr Lyn Thomas, Head of Legal, and Mark James, Chief Executive, have tried to distance the libel case away from the decision to amend. Which is nonsense of course. The Wales Audit Ofice, when (apologetically) questioning the legality of the delegation of such powers, assumed that the amendment was approved at the same time that the Order barring instigation of defamation claims was adopted in 2006 - it wasn't, there was a two year gap, during which time not only was our case ongoing but the council were paying for external legal advice regarding defamation, initially denied in a FoI response to me. Stranger still, despite Mr James qualification in law and offer of 'all the help he can' in November 2006 to the Head of Planning, a contrived 'formal request for funding' was made by the Head of Planning himself in June 2007, this, apparently, was refused, which makes the presence of the document in the Chief Executive's and Resources department two months later so incriminating. Mr Thomas' answer has always to claim complete ignorance of the matter. How convenient.
As for the change in the constitution, I await the response from the Welsh Assembly which doesn't seem quite as forthcoming as the response from Westminster . I don't know why, perhaps the Assembly are wondering what to do...with Mark James advising them on education reform (through Solace), the Head of Planning advising them on planning matters and Meryl Gravell in her various roles as queen of councillors for Wales it could make for awkward lunchtime silences, (three reasons why I am hesitant about voting for further devolution). I do hope that 'Carmarthenshire cronyism' hasn't spread to the Bay. Both the Local Government Act and the cited case law fail to provide a proper legal basis to override the order on indemnities. I also note that in the WAO correspondence reference is made by Mr Lyn Thomas to the provision of libel indemnities to Members as well as officers - his correspondence to me only referred to officers...this casts another shadow onto the legality of the constitution and scheme of delegation. As I have said before, the Welsh Assembly must come to the same opinion as Westminster and I trust they will be in agreement with me that the amendment is, as far as the wider public interest is concerned, morally reprehensible, financially foolhardy and, with further action in mind, legally flawed.
http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.com/2010/07/council-libel-funding-cost-to-public.html
Use 'search' for further posts.
UPDATE 16th SEPTEMBER
I can now confirm that Mr Rhodri Glyn Thomas, (his letter here) has received a reply from the Welsh minister for Local Government. As a consequence of the reply, he has now sent a Freedom of Information request to Carmarthenshire County Council. We will wait for the outcome.
0 comments:
Post a Comment