Rutland saga timeline BBC NEWS
UKIP Three, the former RAC Team
Cllrs Gale, Richardson, and Wainwright
8 October 2012 - County council votes to investigate activities of the Rutland Anti-Corruption Group
17 October 2012 - Law firm Bevan Brittan commissioned to investigate
January 2013 - Report published and advises council it could sue the three councillors and take out an injunction under the new Localism Act
10 January - Council votes to take action
17 January - In a statement in Parliament, Lord McNally said a council could not sue, under a principle established in 1993
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): My Lords, it is now 2 pm. I have to start the proceedings as usual by saying that in the event of a Division in the House, which is extremely unlikely, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes. Before we come to the first amendment, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has a statement to make which is not debatable.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally): My Lords, at the beginning of the Committee's discussions on Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, raised an issue in relation to legal advice which had been given to Rutland County Council. It suggested that the general powers given to local authorities in Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 had overturned the bar on them suing in defamation, which was established by the House of Lords in Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers.
My officials have explored the issue with officials at the Department for Communities and Local Government, which is responsible for the 2011 Act. The Government are in no doubt that if a case were brought, the courts would still find that local authorities cannot bring action in defamation. The decision in Derbyshire was reached on public policy grounds, which we considered remain compelling. The House of Lords found that it would be contrary to the public interest for organs of government to be able to sue in defamation, and that it would be an undesirable fetter on freedom of speech. It must be borne in mind that Derbyshire was decided before the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998. Consideration of Article 10 would only bolster the reasoning of the House of Lords in Derbyshire.
“The Government are in no doubt that if a case were brought, the courts would still find that local authorities cannot bring action in defamation. The decision in Derbyshire was reached on public policy grounds, which we considered remain compelling. The House of Lords found that it would be contrary to the public interest for organs of government to be able to sue in defamation, and that it would be an undesirable fetter on freedom of speech.”
June - The three councillors switch to UKIP
Three Independent Councillors to join UKIP
As three very experienced and long serving Independent Councillors on Rutland County Council we have decided to join the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) forthwith.
Councillor Richard Gale, a businessman and now farmer, is one of the longest serving Councillors on Rutland Council, having served for 18 years.
Councillor David Richardson, an ex-serving RAF Officer and fighter pilot, has been a Councillor for 10 years.
Councillor Nick Wainwright, a Building Project Manager who has overseen such projects as the build of the British Embassy in Moscow, has been a Councillor for 6 years; formerly a member of the Conservative Cabinet before becoming disillusioned with the way in which the Conservatives were running Rutland Council in the pretence of Conservatism.
In May 2011 we all stood in the election as Independents on a platform of honesty, integrity, openness and transparency along with upholding the fundamental principles of democracy, believing we should always be accountable to the electorate and were there only to serve them.
We formed an Independent Political Group on the Council, under the name of the Rutland Anti-Corruption Group, to make it quite clear where we stood. Having grave concerns in the way Rutland Council was being run, the Group asked a number of questions in line with our duty and responsibility as Councillors, especially given the number of major multi-million pound land deals; asset disposals; suspect planning approvals and the squandering of millions of pounds of grant funding. Instead of answers we found ourselves being blocked from receiving the very basic information we are entitled to as Councillors. As a consequence, with a growing suspicion and concern of serious fraud and corruption, this was duly reported to all appropriate authorities, including Mr Pickles Office. Nothing was done except prevarication and a determination to ignore the basic facts and interpret law to suit. As we pressed for due diligence and proper investigation, we found instead ourselves to be on the receiving end of accusations and a co-ordinated attack to now do nothing more than denigrate us. A law firm, Bevan-Brittan, being employed at public expense to investigate us; a Kangaroo Court; vilification by our Local Conservative MP; along with suggestions that we had harassed Officers merely for doing nothing more than ask questions in line with our duty; being placed on a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) restricting us from communicating with the public and Council; finally a Police enquiry against us on the grounds we had supposedly harassed the ##########. It was, in fact, ourselves being harassed for doing nothing more than asking straightforward and reasonable questions. We are, however, determined to see democracy upheld and the truth revealed and will not be intimidated by such actions.
Having endured all of this, trying to do the best for a Country we love and are proud, a Country we believed upheld the principles of democracy, we came to recognise that as Independent Councillors we are not afforded the protection of a Political Party, this has allowed this Conservative Council to do nothing more than pillory us, whilst running a Council to suit their own end rather than that of the public.
We therefore decided to join UKIP to afford some protection and to have a Political Party supporting us in our endeavours to do nothing more than reveal the truth. The current misuse and misappropriation of public money is an utter disgrace.
UKIP was the obvious choice, as they supported the same ideals as ourselves; those of honesty, integrity, openness and transparency, along with upholding the fundamental principles of democracy. UKIP also does not impose a whip, thus allowing Councillors to exercise their own judgement and vote in line with the wishes of their electorate.
We believe, as does UKIP, that Local Government has to be returned to the people and must no longer rest with the bureaucrats, working too closely with Council Leaderships, bureaucrats who do nothing but use the tools of burdensome bureaucracy, created by them, to suit nothing more than their own agendas and interests and most certainly not those of the people.
29 July - Council votes to pay legal fees for officers to sue the councillors and gives the three men a week to apologise
August - They write to the council but do not apologise
Also August
*******************Brandon Lewis MP Member of Parliament for Great Yarmouth
The BBC leave out how the Councillors have been harassed in a similar manner as I have by
Leicestershire Police. But that is covered in the Councillors Statement shown above.
UKIP Three, the former RAC Team
Cllrs Gale, Richardson, and Wainwright
8 October 2012 - County council votes to investigate activities of the Rutland Anti-Corruption Group
Date: Monday 8 October 2012
Time: 7.00pm
Venue: Council Chamber, Catmose, Oakham
Agenda
Reports
17 October 2012 - Law firm Bevan Brittan commissioned to investigate
January 2013 - Report published and advises council it could sue the three councillors and take out an injunction under the new Localism Act
10 January - Council votes to take action
Date: Thursday 10 January 2013
Time: 7.00pm
Venue: Council Chamber, Catmose, Oakham
Reports
17 January - In a statement in Parliament, Lord McNally said a council could not sue, under a principle established in 1993
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): My Lords, it is now 2 pm. I have to start the proceedings as usual by saying that in the event of a Division in the House, which is extremely unlikely, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes. Before we come to the first amendment, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has a statement to make which is not debatable.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally): My Lords, at the beginning of the Committee's discussions on Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, raised an issue in relation to legal advice which had been given to Rutland County Council. It suggested that the general powers given to local authorities in Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 had overturned the bar on them suing in defamation, which was established by the House of Lords in Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers.
My officials have explored the issue with officials at the Department for Communities and Local Government, which is responsible for the 2011 Act. The Government are in no doubt that if a case were brought, the courts would still find that local authorities cannot bring action in defamation. The decision in Derbyshire was reached on public policy grounds, which we considered remain compelling. The House of Lords found that it would be contrary to the public interest for organs of government to be able to sue in defamation, and that it would be an undesirable fetter on freedom of speech. It must be borne in mind that Derbyshire was decided before the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998. Consideration of Article 10 would only bolster the reasoning of the House of Lords in Derbyshire.
“The Government are in no doubt that if a case were brought, the courts would still find that local authorities cannot bring action in defamation. The decision in Derbyshire was reached on public policy grounds, which we considered remain compelling. The House of Lords found that it would be contrary to the public interest for organs of government to be able to sue in defamation, and that it would be an undesirable fetter on freedom of speech.”
June - The three councillors switch to UKIP
Three Independent Councillors to join UKIP
As three very experienced and long serving Independent Councillors on Rutland County Council we have decided to join the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) forthwith.
Councillor Richard Gale, a businessman and now farmer, is one of the longest serving Councillors on Rutland Council, having served for 18 years.
Councillor David Richardson, an ex-serving RAF Officer and fighter pilot, has been a Councillor for 10 years.
Councillor Nick Wainwright, a Building Project Manager who has overseen such projects as the build of the British Embassy in Moscow, has been a Councillor for 6 years; formerly a member of the Conservative Cabinet before becoming disillusioned with the way in which the Conservatives were running Rutland Council in the pretence of Conservatism.
In May 2011 we all stood in the election as Independents on a platform of honesty, integrity, openness and transparency along with upholding the fundamental principles of democracy, believing we should always be accountable to the electorate and were there only to serve them.
We formed an Independent Political Group on the Council, under the name of the Rutland Anti-Corruption Group, to make it quite clear where we stood. Having grave concerns in the way Rutland Council was being run, the Group asked a number of questions in line with our duty and responsibility as Councillors, especially given the number of major multi-million pound land deals; asset disposals; suspect planning approvals and the squandering of millions of pounds of grant funding. Instead of answers we found ourselves being blocked from receiving the very basic information we are entitled to as Councillors. As a consequence, with a growing suspicion and concern of serious fraud and corruption, this was duly reported to all appropriate authorities, including Mr Pickles Office. Nothing was done except prevarication and a determination to ignore the basic facts and interpret law to suit. As we pressed for due diligence and proper investigation, we found instead ourselves to be on the receiving end of accusations and a co-ordinated attack to now do nothing more than denigrate us. A law firm, Bevan-Brittan, being employed at public expense to investigate us; a Kangaroo Court; vilification by our Local Conservative MP; along with suggestions that we had harassed Officers merely for doing nothing more than ask questions in line with our duty; being placed on a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) restricting us from communicating with the public and Council; finally a Police enquiry against us on the grounds we had supposedly harassed the ##########. It was, in fact, ourselves being harassed for doing nothing more than asking straightforward and reasonable questions. We are, however, determined to see democracy upheld and the truth revealed and will not be intimidated by such actions.
Having endured all of this, trying to do the best for a Country we love and are proud, a Country we believed upheld the principles of democracy, we came to recognise that as Independent Councillors we are not afforded the protection of a Political Party, this has allowed this Conservative Council to do nothing more than pillory us, whilst running a Council to suit their own end rather than that of the public.
We therefore decided to join UKIP to afford some protection and to have a Political Party supporting us in our endeavours to do nothing more than reveal the truth. The current misuse and misappropriation of public money is an utter disgrace.
UKIP was the obvious choice, as they supported the same ideals as ourselves; those of honesty, integrity, openness and transparency, along with upholding the fundamental principles of democracy. UKIP also does not impose a whip, thus allowing Councillors to exercise their own judgement and vote in line with the wishes of their electorate.
We believe, as does UKIP, that Local Government has to be returned to the people and must no longer rest with the bureaucrats, working too closely with Council Leaderships, bureaucrats who do nothing but use the tools of burdensome bureaucracy, created by them, to suit nothing more than their own agendas and interests and most certainly not those of the people.
29 July - Council votes to pay legal fees for officers to sue the councillors and gives the three men a week to apologise
Date: Monday 29 July 2013
Time: 7.00 pm
Venue: Council Chamber, Catmose, Oakham
Agenda - 29 July 2013 (Special)
Minutes - 29 July Minutes
August - They write to the council but do not apologise
Our ref:
Your ref: JRNI/JRN1/94586\3
5 August 2013
Bevan Brittan LLP Kings Orchard
1 Queen Street
Bristol
BS2 01-IQ
Dear Sirs,
Your Client: Rutland County Council
Matter: Alleged Defamation of Council Officers
I write in relation to your client's allegations of libel, and refer to your letters dated 1 and 15 July 2013.
For the avoidance of doubt, I reject any suggestion that your client has a cause of action in the tort of defamation.
Your client will therefore be well advised to immediately withdraw its instructions to you. Should your client continue its ill-conceived pursuit of me in any form, including action under the Pre-Action Protocol, it will be an abuse of its power. Should your client instigate proceedings, I shall, at the appropriate time, apply to strike out on the basis that your client has no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and/or it is an abuse of the process.
In addition, should your client continue to pursue the matter, I will consider this to be harassment as defined by Sections 1 and 2 of the Harasment Act 1997, and will take appropriate action,
I understand that your client has to date, expended approximately £42,000.00 in the matter. I consider that this is a misuse of public funds and those officers that have sanctioned the expenditure are culpable. Public funds have been used far payment for what I consider to be a private civil action.
Notwithstanding that your client has no cause of action, is abusing its powers, is acting ultra virus and is misusing public funds, I briefly comment on the contents of your letter dated 1 July 2013 in relation to the alleged defamatory remarks.
Your letter dated 1 July 2013
You have stated that your client has instructed you on behalf of "the senior officers of the Council including ################## . You are requested to disclose all of the senior officers' names that your client purports to act on its behalf. You are also requested to disclose your instructions. Failure to disclose either one of these requests will result in me making an application under the Freedom of Information Act and / or under Part 31.16 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
It is quite improper for your client, which will not be a party in any defamation proceedings, to withhold the names of individuals that are the complainants.
Ignoring the fact that the remarks quoted are incapable of being reconciled against any person, proper or otherwise, you have failed to:
a) Identify the actual words complained of;
b) Identify the precise factual inaccuracies or unsupportable comment within the words complained of insofar that each Claimant gives a sufficient explanation to enable me to appreciate why the words arc inaccurate or unsupportable;
c) Detail all the facts and / or matters which make each Claimant identifiable from the words complained of; and
d) Provide details of any special facts relevant to the interpretation of the words complained of and / or any particular damage caused by the words complained of.
Should any individual complainant proceed with the matter of defamation and issue a Letter of Claim, it will be mandatory for each Claimant to provide the information as set out above and detailed at paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 of the Pre-Action Protocol. Indeed, to be successful a claimant must prove on balance:
a) that the publication carries a defamatory meaning;
b) that the publication does refer to the claimant; and
c) that the defendant is responsible for the publication.
In order to bring a claim for defamation therefore, each Claimant must prove that I published a defamatory statement to a third party which refers to the particular Claimant, of which the statement made other people think worse of the particular Claimant. From case law, there is no doubt that the Council officers that your client purports to act on behalf of, will be unable to adduce the requisite level of evidence to show that the alleged defamatory statement actually referred to the particular Claimant.
For the avoidance of doubt, the statement as quoted in your letter is not defamatory, nor does it identify any person or class of person, and thus it is impossible for any individual of the Council to have been defamed in a way that would lower him or her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society at large. The combined statement is nothing but public criticism of Rutland County Council, made in the context of an honest comment.
It is clear to me that your letter is fundamentally deficient in substance and cause. Your letter is no more than a thinly disguised attempt to bring illegitimate pressure onto me in order to restrain my freedom of speech which is contrary to section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I look forward to receiving the information requested.
Yours faithfully,
Also August
“The Derbyshire principle is clear that local authorities cannot bring libel or defamation actions.
Democratic bodies should be open to public criticism, within the law.
Whilst I make no comment on the nature of allegations, I believe it is totally inappropriate for private defamation actions to be funded by council taxpayers’ money, given the clear Derbyshire principle"
*******************Brandon Lewis MP Member of Parliament for Great Yarmouth
The BBC leave out how the Councillors have been harassed in a similar manner as I have by
Leicestershire Police. But that is covered in the Councillors Statement shown above.
