Rutland UKIP Councillors, Fight Back, Letter to, Bevan Brittan LLP, Bristol

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 the ############################# .  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,

http://www.4rutland.com/dave/letter-to-bevan-brittan-%E2%80%93-alleged-defamation-of-council-officers

Rutland County Council, Public Questions, Mr Mehra, New Statesman, Leicestershire Police, Rutland Anti Corruption Party, Responses, Chief Executive, Mrs Briggs, Bevan Brittan LLP, Mr Keith-Lucas

Although my name is mentioned in the following questions, I did not request they be asked  I have not objected to them being asked.

Rutland County Council
Catmose Oakham Rutland LE15 6HP

Telephone 01572 722577 Facsimile 01572 758307 DX 28340 Oakham

TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTEENTH (Special) MEETING of the COUNCIL held in the Council Chamber, Catmose, Oakham on Thursday 10 January 2013 at 7.00pm.

Questions received from Miss Helen Pender, Oakham

1) Re: Bevan Brittan Report, 16 November 2012, Appendix A. Introduction, Item 4:

“We have previously advised the Council in connection with statements made by Martin Brookes on his weblog …”

1. What previous advice has RCC, its officers or Councillors sought or received on Martin Brookes’ web publications?

The Chairman invited the Chief Executive of Rutland County Council, Mrs Briggs, to respond. 

Mrs Briggs responded “Advice was provided on the possible course of action relating to the Mr Brookes Blog on 25th May 2010”.* 1.

2.What other advice has the Council, its officers or Councillors sought or received on any other internet publications?

Mrs Briggs responded “None to my knowledge”.

3.

(a) Have letters been written to Private Eye or The Leicester Mercury? 

(b) If so, what was the cost of writing letters to these or any other publications?

Mrs Briggs responded “None on behalf of the Authority”.

4.

How much liaison, and with whom was the liaison conducted between RCC, its officers or Councillors and Leicestershire Police? What matters were raised?

Mrs Briggs responded “The Council liaises on a regular basis with Leicestershire Police in the normal course of business. Issues of concern in relation to Blogs have been discussed but only informally and no action has been requested”. 2.

5.

Did any Councillor on RCC seek to convict Martin Brookes with a Criminal ASBO?

Mrs Briggs responded “The Council has had no involvement in such action”. 3.

Miss Pender asked the following supplementary question:

I notice the caveat “none on behalf of the Authority”, which seems to connect you to someone connected to Council; has someone written to the Mercury?

Mrs Briggs responded “I can only answer on behalf of the Authority and that is the answer”.






my comments:

1. that advice cost the council £2385.00

2. So if no action was requested why did Inspector J Monks feel the need to 
take action?

3. Conservative Cabinet Member Councillor Gene Plews did, he claimed in
a rather fictitious police statement, I "have destroyed Oakham" and was part 
of a group made of 9 people made up of Town Councillors, The Mayor then 
Cllr Joyce Lucas and ex Mayor Paul Beech and their cronies, last  year, 
Class A bullying, I was not happy and neither were the CPS. 

2) Bevan Brittan has published an email from Cllr Richardson to Kim Sawyer dated 15 November 2012 in which he states:

2.The second disciplinary meeting (of Aman Mehra) was on 14 June 2012.

1.Who requested this meeting? Why?

2.Why would a disciplinary meeting be held with the erstwhile monitoring officer and compliance officer of RCC? Is this true?

3.If this meeting was held at the request of Mr Mehra it would suggest that he had severe reservations over compliance matters. Such reservations could not legally be said to breach employee post mortem confidentiality so:

a) Did Mr Mehra have any concerns over RCC compliance matters?

b) What were those concerns?


Mrs Briggs responded “Mr Mehra was the subject of an ongoing disciplinary investigation which had not concluded. The meeting which took place on 14th June 2012 related to that ongoing disciplinary investigation. The meeting was not held at the request of Mr Mehra”.

There was no supplementary question.

3) 

Bevan Brittan report, 16 November 2012, Appendix A. Introduction, Item 4 states:

“We have previously advised the Council ……”

Can this report be said to be independent when:

a) 

Bevan Brittan have clearly advised the Council on previous occasions?

b) 

I understand Bevan Brittan have failed to talk to Councillors Gale, Richardson and Wainwright when compiling this report. Can this be deemed wholly independent if Bevan Brittan have failed to ascertain the other half of the argument and case brought against these Councillors by RCC?

c) 

Since all liaison with Bevan Brittan only outlined RCC’s complaint was it not a complete waste of public monies?

Mrs Briggs responded “The report has been prepared by a nationally prominent firm of Solicitors instructed under normal client care conditions. The firm is independent of the Council. The only previous connection was through similarly arms-length instruction.

They were instructed to advise on the possible legal options which the Council might wish to consider, not to undertake a full investigation.”

Miss Pender asked the following supplementary question:

I understand that the legal correspondent on the New Statesman has contacted a local blogger, saying the advice is deeply suspect; why didn’t you contact a QC why a jobbing solicitor?

The Chairman invited the Local Government Partner, Bevan Brittan LLP, 

Mr Keith-Lucas to respond. 

Mr Keith-Lucas responded “Mr Green had contacted me to say that he intended to publish and he disagreed with the substance of the report. However, this could only be resolved in a court of law and that was the end of the discussion.”