Judgments - Magill v. Porter Magill v. Weeks

(back to preceding text)

    16. At a meeting on 29 July 1987 the council received a report from the Housing Committee. The city solicitor informed the council that a report on designated sales had been prepared following a consultation with leading counsel and that it had been seen and approved by leading counsel before it went to the Housing Committee. The council voted to receive the report.

    17. The achievement of the electoral targets set out in the BSC campaign "plan for action", including those for designated sales, was monitored by the chairmen's group and by members' and officers' steering groups. On 14 September 1987, the chairmen's group decided that the managing director of the council should produce a BSC monitoring report to every other of its meetings, and confidential BSC monitoring reports were produced to such meetings on a number of dates thereafter. The reports considered what progress was being made in each of the eight key wards towards the sales target for that ward in 1987-1988. Two reports which were presented to the Policy and Resources Committee of the council, in October 1987 and May 1988, referred to BSC but did not refer to the key wards, the targets established for them or the system established to secure the achievement of those targets. Documents which were intended for public consumption did "not speak to key wards". In 1988, opposition members of the council raised questions about why the key/marginal wards were being monitored. There were deliberate attempts by officers to conceal the system of monitoring which had been established by giving deliberately misleading answers to proper questions from members of the minority party on the council. Under this pressure from the opposition, the BSC members' steering group (which Mr Weeks chaired) sought, but was unable to find, a rationale (other than their electoral marginality) for the selection of the eight key wards. On 12 April 1988 the chairmen's group, with Dame Shirley Porter and Mr Weeks in attendance, were informed that the BSC members' steering group would consider a BSC monitoring report (in the form requested by the chairmen) and a "rationale for key wards" at its meeting on 28 April 1988. Item 3 on the agenda for that meeting was "Rationale for Key Wards". This took the form of a paper by an officer, which did not provide any rationale for the selection of the eight key wards. The minutes recorded that "the paper looked at ways of going public on targeted wards. It was agreed that no such paper should be a formal document; each ward should be taken individually". Mr England's note of the meeting, under "area approach" recorded "Minority Party interest . . . not easy to confirm just the 8. . . Keep on Dodging???". Subsequent attempts were made to find a rationale (other than their electoral marginality) for the eight key wards. On 25 July 1988 Mr England met with Dr Dutt and discussed (among other things) "explanation for eight wards", "public audit . . . can we justify why eight were chosen" and "why did we pick them? Members will ask us", and Mr England's action list as a result of the meeting included "key wards - find defence of 8 wards". In a memorandum dated 24 August 1988, the city solicitor asked why the eight wards were chosen, by whom they were chosen and why they were regarded as key, but those questions were never answered.

    18. On 19 July 1989 the BBC transmitted a "Panorama" programme on the designated sales policy in Westminster. Charts presented to the BSC members' steering group after 28 July 1989 recorded rights to buy and designated sales in all 23 wards in the city, not just the eight key wards. The auditor was appointed following objections made by a number of local government electors in letters dated 18 July, 20 July and 8 November 1989.

The underlying legal principles

    19. The legal principles which underlie the auditor's findings against Dame Shirley Porter and Mr Weeks are not in the main controversial, but since they are the bedrock of his decision they should be briefly summarised.

(1)  Powers conferred on a local authority may be exercised for the public purpose for which the powers were conferred and not otherwise. A very clear statement of this principle is to be found in Wade and Forsyth, Administrative Law (8th ed, 2000) at pp 356-357. The corresponding passage in an earlier edition of that work was expressly approved by Lord Bridge of Harwich in R v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council Ex p Chetnik Developments Ltd [1988] AC 858 at 872:

    "Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended . . ."

The principle is routinely applied, as by Neill LJ in Credit Suisse v Allerdale Borough Council [1997] QB 306 at 333 who described it as "a general principle of public law".

(2)  Such powers are exercised by or on the delegation of councillors. It is misconduct in a councillor to exercise or be party to the exercise of such powers otherwise than for the public purpose for which the powers were conferred. Where public powers are conferred on a council, it is the body of elected councillors who must exercise those powers save to the extent that such exercise is lawfully delegated to groups of councillors or to officers. All will act in the name or on behalf of the council. It follows from the proposition that public powers are conferred as if upon trust that those who exercise powers in a manner inconsistent with the public purpose for which the powers were conferred betray that trust and so misconduct themselves. This is an old and very important principle. It was clearly expressed by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in Attorney General ex rel Rea v Belfast Corporation (1855) 4 IR Ch 119 at 160-161:

    "Municipal Corporations would cease to be tangible bodies for any purpose of redress on account of a breach of trust, if the individuals who constituted the executive, and by whom the injury has been committed, cannot be made responsible. They are a collection of persons doing acts that, when done, are the acts of the Corporation, but which are induced by the individuals who recommend and support them; and this Court holds that persons who withdraw themselves from the duties of their office may be rendered equally answerable for the acts of those whom they allow, by their absence, to have exclusive dominion over the corporate property . . . As the trustees of the corporate estate, nominated by the Legislature, and appointed by their fellow-citizens, it is their duty to attend to the interests of the Corporation, conduct themselves honestly and uprightly, and to see that every one acts for the interests of the trust over which he and they are placed."

(3)  If the councillors misconduct themselves knowingly or recklessly it is regarded by the law as wilful misconduct. The auditor's power to surcharge councillors under section 20(1)(b) of the 1982 Act is dependent on a finding of wilful misconduct. That expression was defined by Webster J in Graham v Teesdale (1981) 81 LGR 117 at 123 to mean "deliberately doing something which is wrong knowing it to be wrong or with reckless indifference as to whether it is wrong or not". That definition was approved by the Court of Appeal in Lloyd v McMahon [1987] AC 625 at 646-7, 655 and 674 and by the House of Lords at pp 697 and 702. It was adopted by the Divisional Court in the present case: (1997) 96 LGR 157 at 167-8. It was also accepted by the Court of Appeal: [2000] 2 WLR 1420 at p 1443. There was no challenge to this definition before the House and I would accept it as representing the intention of Parliament when using this expression.

(4)  If the wilful misconduct of a councillor is found to have caused loss to a local authority the councillor is liable to make good such loss to the council. This is the rule now laid down in section 20(1) of the 1982 Act. But it is not a new rule. A similar provision was expressed in section 247(7) of the Public Health Act 1875, section 228(1)(d) of the Local Government Act 1933 and in section 161(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (although in the two earlier sections the reference was to "negligence or misconduct" and not to "wilful misconduct"). Even before these statutory provisions the law had been declared in clear terms. One such statement may be found in Attorney General v Wilson (1840) Cr & Ph 1 at pp 24-27 where the Lord Chancellor (Lord Cottenham) said:

    "The true way of viewing this is to consider the members of the governing body of the corporation as its agents, bound to exercise its functions for the purposes for which they were given, and to protect its interests and property; and if such agents exercise those functions for the purposes of injuring its interests and alienating its property, shall the corporations be estopped in this Court from complaining because the act done was ostensibly an act of the corporation? . . . As members of the governing body, it was their duty as the corporation, whose trustees and agents they, in that respect, were, to preserve and protect the property confided to them; instead of which, having previously, as they supposed, placed the property, by the deeds of the 30th May 1835, in a convenient position for that purpose, they take measures for alienating that property, with the avowed design of depriving the corporation of it; and, with this view, they procure trusts to be declared, and transfers of part of the property to be made to the several other Defendants in this cause, for purposes in no manner connected with the purposes to which the funds were devoted, and for which it was their duty to protect and preserve them. This was not only a breach of trust and a violation of duty towards the corporation, whose agents and trustees they were, but an act of spoliation against all the inhabitants of Leeds liable to the borough rate; every individual of whom had an interest in the fund, for his exoneration, pro tanto, from the borough rate. If any other agent or trustee had so dealt with property over which the owner had given him control, can there be any doubt but that such agent or trustee would, in this Court, be made responsible for so much of the alienated property as could not be recovered in specie? But if Lord Hardwicke was right in The Charitable Corporation case, and I am right in this case, in considering the authors of the wrong as agents or trustees of the corporation, then the two cases are identical. I cannot doubt, therefore, that the Plaintiffs are entitled to redress against the three trustees and those members of the governing body who were instrumental in carrying into effect the acts complained of: and it is proved that the five Defendants fall under that description."

(5)  Powers conferred on a local authority may not lawfully be exercised to promote the electoral advantage of a political party. Support for this principle may be found in R v Board of Education [1910] 2 KB 165 at 181 where Farwell LJ said:

    "If this means that the Board were hampered by political considerations, I can only say that such considerations are pre-eminently extraneous, and that no political consequence can justify the Board in allowing their judgment and discretion to be influenced thereby."

This passage was accepted by Lord Upjohn in Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997 at 1058, 1061. In R v Port Talbot Borough Council and Others Ex p Jones [1988] 2 All ER 207 at 214, where council accommodation had been allocated to an applicant in order that she should be the better able to fight an election, Nolan J regarded that decision as based on irrelevant considerations.

    20. Counsel for Dame Shirley Porter and Mr Weeks urged upon the House what were said to be the realities of party politics. Councillors elected as members of a political party and forming part of that party group on the council could not be expected to be oblivious to considerations of party political advantage. So long as they had reasons for taking action other than purely partisan political reasons their conduct could not be impugned. Reliance was placed on observations of Kennedy LJ in the Court of Appeal (at 1444):

    "Some of the submissions advanced on behalf of the auditor have been framed in such a way as to suggest that any councillor who allows the possibility of electoral advantage even to cross his mind before he decides upon a course of action is guilty of misconduct. That seems to me to be unreal. In local, as in national, politics many if not most decisions carry an electoral price tag, and all politicians are aware of it. In most cases they cannot seriously be expected to disregard it, but they know that if the action which they take is to withstand scrutiny (to be 'judge-proof') there must be sound local government reasons, not just excuses, on which they can rely."

Schiemann LJ (at pp 1448, 1449) spoke to similar effect:

    "Whether or not the decision of the housing committee was unlawful depends, in the circumstances of this case, on the motivation of the committee at the time of the vote. If its motive was purely to secure electoral advantage for the Conservative Party then the decision was unlawful. If purely Housing Act considerations were its motivation then its decision would be lawful. . . . There is a complication. Frequently individual persons act from mixed motives. Further, group decisions may have multiple motivations - in part because there are many votes cast and in part because each voter may himself have several motivations . . . It is legitimate for councillors to desire that their party should win the next election. Our political system works on the basis that they desire that because they think that the policies to which their party is wedded is in the public interest and will require years to be achieved. There is nothing disgraceful or unlawful in councillors having that desire. For this court to hold otherwise would depart from our theory of democracy and current reality . . ."

    21. Whatever the difficulties of application which may arise in a borderline case, I do not consider the overriding principle to be in doubt. Elected politicians of course wish to act in a manner which will commend them and their party (when, as is now usual, they belong to one) to the electorate. Such an ambition is the life blood of democracy and a potent spur to responsible decision-taking and administration. Councillors do not act improperly or unlawfully if, exercising public powers for a public purpose for which such powers were conferred, they hope that such exercise will earn the gratitude and support of the electorate and thus strengthen their electoral position. The law would indeed part company with the realities of party politics if it were to hold otherwise. But a public power is not exercised lawfully if it is exercised not for a public purpose for which the power was conferred but in order to promote the electoral advantage of a political party. The power at issue in the present case is section 32 of the Housing Act 1985, which conferred power on local authorities to dispose of land held by them subject to conditions specified in the Act. Thus a local authority could dispose of its property, subject to the provisions of the Act, to promote any public purpose for which such power was conferred, but could not lawfully do so for the purpose of promoting the electoral advantage of any party represented on the council.

    22. The House was referred to a number of cases in which the part which political allegiance may properly play in local government has been explored: R v Sheffield City Council, Ex p Chadwick (1985) 84 LGR 563; R v Waltham Forest London Borough Council, Ex p Baxter [1988] QB 419; Jones v Swansea City Council [1990] 1 WLR 54; R v Bradford City Metropolitan Council, Ex p Wilson [1990] 2 QB 375; R v Local Commissioner for Administration in North and North East of England, Ex p Liverpool City Council [2001] 1 All ER 462. These cases show that while councillors may lawfully support a policy adopted by their party they must not abdicate their responsibility and duty of exercising personal judgment. There is nothing in these cases to suggest that a councillor may support a policy not for valid local government reasons but with the object of obtaining an electoral advantage.

The findings made against Dame Shirley Porter and Mr Weeks

    23. Reference has already been made to the detailed and protracted investigation conducted by the auditor. Details are given in the judgment of the Divisional Court at pp 161-162. He made very lengthy findings. The Divisional Court in its turn received a mass of written material, heard evidence from Dame Shirley Porter and Mr Weeks and conducted a hearing extending over 23 sitting days. The decision of the auditor and the Divisional Court adverse to Dame Shirley Porter and Mr Weeks rested on four main findings.

    24. The first of these findings was that the Westminster City Council adopted a policy the object of which was to achieve a specified annual level of sales of properties owned by the council in the eight marginal wards with the intention that the properties thus vacated should be sold to new residents who, as owner-occupiers, might reasonably be expected to vote conservative and so increase the electoral strength of the Conservative Party in those wards in the 1990 council elections. The auditor put his conclusions on this point in a number of different ways. It is enough to quote paragraph 53(2)(d)(v) of his summary of his findings and views:

    "both the decision to increase the number of designated sales and the selection of the properties designated for sale were influenced by an irrelevant consideration, namely the electoral advantage of the majority party. I have found that the electoral advantage of the majority party was the driving force behind the policy of increased designated sales and that that consideration was the predominant consideration which influenced both the decision to increase designated sales by 500 per annum and the selection of properties designated for sale. My view is that the Council was engaged in gerrymandering, which I have found is a disgraceful and improper purpose, and not a purpose for which a local authority may act."

The Divisional Court (at pp 164-165) accepted this conclusion:

    "In the 1986 local government elections the Conservative Party on the council were returned with a very small majority. With a view to greater success in the 1990 elections, the party formulated a policy of 'building stable communities'. A major element in this policy was to increase designated sales of council properties in eight key marginal wards to potential owner-occupiers. It was believed that owner-occupiers would be more likely to vote Conservative . . . On 8 July 1987 the housing committee, having received a much amended joint report from council officials, resolved to extend the programme of designated sales so as to produce 500 sales per annum city-wide and introduced a scheme for capital grants of £15,000 to encourage tenants to move. On 29 July 1987 the council refused to overturn the committee's decision. Thereafter, the progress of the policy in marginal wards was monitored."

In the Court of Appeal Robert Walker LJ could see no reason why that court, which had not heard the witnesses, could or should depart from the Divisional Court's findings, which there was ample documentary evidence to confirm and virtually no evidence to contradict. These conclusions are clearly accepted in the agreed findings briefly summarised in paragraphs 4-18 above.

    25. Nothing that the House has heard gives any ground for doubting the correctness of the conclusion of the auditor and the Divisional Court on this point. It follows from the legal principles already summarised that the council's policy was unlawful because directed to the pursuit of electoral advantage and not the achievement of proper housing objectives.

    26. The decision of the auditor and the Divisional Court adverse to Dame Shirley Porter and Mr Weeks was based, secondly, on the conclusion that they were both party to the adoption and implementation of this unlawful policy.

    27. With regard to Dame Shirley Porter the auditor found (at p 417, para 1147 of his decision):

    "I find as a fact that Councillor Lady Porter was one of the Members responsible for determining the direction and content of the policy of the majority group on the Council. She formulated the 'Strategy to 1990' which aimed to give top priority in the development of Council policies to electoral success. I find that, after the local government elections in May 1986, her top priority was to secure that the Conservative Party was successful in the local government elections for the Council in 1990 and she ensured that the policies of the Council on matters such as home ownership and homelessness were directed to that end. I find as a fact that she was concerned to secure an increase in the number of home owners and a reduction in the number of homeless households accommodated in marginal (or key) wards by 1990, in order to increase the number of likely Conservative voters in those wards in the 1990 local government elections. For her, the designated sales policy was a means to that end."

The auditor made similar findings concerning Mr Weeks (p 578, paras 1579-1580):

    "I have found that Councillor Weeks was one of the Members responsible for determining the direction and content of the policy of the majority group on the Council. He was aware of, and supported, the Leader's 'Strategy to 1990' which aimed to give top priority in the development of Council policies to electoral success. He was aware of, and supported, the initial housing strategy, evolved after the May 1986 local government elections, which involved concentration of activity in marginal wards to help the Conservative party to win the 1990 local government elections, including increased designated sales. I have found as a fact that he was concerned to secure an increase in the number of home owners and a reduction in the number of homeless households accommodated in marginal (or key) wards by 1990, in order to increase the number of likely Conservative voters in those wards in the 1990 local government elections. For him, the designated sales policy was a means to that end.

    I have found that thereafter, Councillor Weeks promoted and supported the Leader's 'Strategy to 1990' and a policy of targeting designated sales and other Council policies in marginal wards in order to secure electoral advantage for the Conservative Party."

The Divisional Court reached similar conclusions (at pages 175, 176 and 183):

    "[Dame Shirley Porter] was by title leader of the majority party and by personality a leader not a follower. Targeting marginal wards was, probably from the end of July 1986 at the latest, central to her political objectives, as a succession of contemporaneous documents makes plain . . . [Mr Weeks] said that the idea of targeting designated sales in marginal wards had 'not got to a detailed stage by March 1987': it was still 'pretty loose' and remained so, even after 5 May. Although he was the lead BSC chairman monitoring the performance of other chairmen, he said he had no direct responsibility for designated sales policy which was a matter 'wholly within the ……..view of the housing committee'. We reject this. As we have said, one of [Dame Shirley Porter's] central objectives from July 1986 was targeting marginal wards and we accept [Mr England's] evidence that, at least from the time of the Segal paper in January 1987, targeting designated sales in marginal wards was firm political policy. As deputy leader and, as he admitted, one who worked closely with the leader and was 'the details man,' [Mr Weeks] was well aware of [Dame Shirley Porter's] objectives and determination and we find that one of his roles to ensure by supervision that the housing committee fulfilled the objectives of the leader and the majority party, particularly in targeting designated sales in marginal wards. Whereas in his affidavit he said that key wards were not selected because of their marginality, in his oral evidence he said that marginality was the reason for their selection . . . We find that designated sales in marginal wards was, as [Mr Hartley] put it, very much [Dame Shirley Porter's] 'baby' and it was embraced by the chairmen's group including [Mr Weeks]. We have no hesitation in finding that the eight wards were identified in early 1987 by members of the majority party because they were marginal, albeit that there were also particular problems to be addressed in some of them, such as those in the central activity zone."

In the Court of Appeal Robert Walker LJ summarised the facts at considerable length, but expressed his conclusion briefly (at p 1485):

    "The overall impression throughout, from mid-1986 to mid-1989, is that the most influential members of the Conservative group on the city council led by Dame Shirley and Mr Weeks, had electoral advantage as the overriding objective in formulating their housing policy, securing its adoption by the council, and implementing it with high priority given to the marginal wards."

    28. These findings again are clearly accepted in the agreed findings already summarised. There is no reason to doubt their correctness.

    29. The third finding crucial to the decision against Dame Shirley Porter and Mr Weeks is that they both knew the designated sales policy targeted on marginal wards to be unlawful. The auditor found (at p 500 of his decision, paras 1363-1364):

    "I find as a fact that Councillor Lady Porter knew that Council facilities could not lawfully be used for party political purposes and that the Council was not entitled to exercise its powers or expend its resources to promote the electoral advantage of her party. As she told Councillor Peter Bradley, in answer to a question from him at a meeting of the Council on 10 June 1987: 'As the member well knows, Council facilities must not be used for party political purposes'.

    I find as a fact that although Councillor Lady Porter may have believed that Leading Counsel had advised that the Council could lawfully extend its programme of designated sales on the basis of the Joint Report without acting inconsistently with its statutory duties to the homeless, Councillor Lady Porter knew that it was unlawful and wrong for the Council to exercise its powers to secure an electoral advantage for any political party or to gerrymander or, in pursuit of such advantage for her party, she was at least recklessly indifferent as to whether it was right or wrong."

Save for the reference to Dame Shirley Porter's answer to Councillor Peter Bradley, the auditor made identical findings in relation to Mr Weeks (p 584, paras 1597-1598).

    30. The Divisional Court made a number of findings on this point at pp 184-185:

    "[Dame Shirley Porter] failed to explain to us why and by whom the eight wards were identified. In our judgment, this failure is explicable not by the effect of the subsequent passage of time on recollection but by the realisation on her part that the more knowledge of detail which she admitted the more closely she would become identified with a policy of targeting designated sales to enhance Conservative prospects in marginal wards which she knew in 1987 and knows now was unlawful . . . From March 1987 when [Dame Shirley Porter] saw [the city solicitor's] answer to the Greenman questions she knew, as she asserts in her affidavit, that the advantages of sale had to 'be considered not from any ulterior motive but from the standpoint of what is right in view of the council's role as a housing authority'. She told us that she was not surprised by that advice and that she did not understand counsel's advice on 5 May to be any different. If this is true, [Dame Shirley Porter] cannot have thought that the suggestion of increasing the numbers city-wide came from Sullivan, because this would have left untouched the continuing ulterior motive in relation to marginal wards which [the city solicitor] had advised against. Clearly there was nothing in Sullivan's advice, as reported by [Mr England], which legitimated designated sales targeted in marginal wards. Indeed, on 10 June [Dame Shirley Porter] answered a question at a council meeting in these terms: 'Council facilities must not be used for party political purposes'. As all members and officers of the council well knew, council properties could not be sold for these purposes. [The city solicitor's] view expressed to the auditor, was that 'everyone in the Conservative Party in Westminster would have known that they could not take party political advantage into account in deciding this policy' . . . Because [Dame Shirley Porter] and [Mr Weeks] knew the targeting policy was unlawful they were content, without further inquiry of Sullivan, [Mr England], [the deputy city solicitor] or anyone else, to adopt the suggestion in [Mr England's] note that it be dressed up in city-wide clothes: neither claims this was a proper course. Their purpose throughout was to achieve unlawful electoral advantage. Knowledge of the unlawfulness and such deliberate dressing-up both inevitably point to, and we find, wilful misconduct on behalf of each of them."

In the Court of Appeal Robert Walker LJ concluded (at p 1488) that Dame Shirley Porter cannot at any stage have believed that targeting marginal wards for electoral advantage was a lawful use of council resources, and that the position was similar but even clearer in relation to Mr Weeks.

continue previous