The legal argument and stuff on Steve's case

#I know Steve is now wanting to get on helping residents - which he has always wanted to help over this period. However, I feel it is important to write a blog post on the legal arguments.

So first of all it is fair to say we all know how the Chief Executive has to be - I want to reiterate the phrase "as to be" - non political. That is the law! We all know that Donna Hall has taken steps to, in my opinion, not only be political but break the law over her time as CE (Chief Executive). Many times opposition members have said lets take her to court. Whilst it is easy to say I know how hard it is to get there and then win. But I always said yes she thinks she has gotten away with it but one day she will go so far that I would take action against her. This was in Steve's case! For a number of reasons I like Steve.and also it is was illegal what Donna Hall had done and she was meddling in democracy.

Steve had had some bad press and personal issues which the council had put in the press. On Friday the 8th Jan 18 they got him in a room at the Town Hall and tried to make him quit there and then - he said he wouldn't for a couple of reasons. So the Council officers, inc the head of Legal Services who is meant to be there to also be impartial and help Cllrs not try and stitch them up.

Because Steve would not resign on the day Friday 8th Jan 18 they said well we can sort your concerns out and say lets do it on the 20th February when you have all your issues resolved with the council. They agreed that would be Steve's intention.

That night the head of Legal Services sent Steve an email and confirmed their cosy deal and asked to Steve to put it out on his Facebook with what his intention were. He also said he wanted Steve to confirm that he was intending to resign on the 20th February. He did confirm that it was his intention. A normal person could see he hadn't resigned.

Later that night Steve rang me just before he posted it on his Facebook page what had happened and he was about to do. I told him not to do the FB post until we had spoken. He did it. On Monday the 8th I visited Steve and we discussed this matter and because he had some time over the weekend and spoke with me he said he wouldn't resign on the 20th February. And so the legal bit started - although we didn't realise it at that time.  Steve sent an email to the Council on Monday 8th Jan to say he wouldn't be resigning on the future date 20th Feb. The following day Donna Hall put out a notification of a vacant seat. She had just had the flipping email the night before but he she was giving two fingers to him, the law and also democracy. We had more communication with the Council and Donna and she wrote to Steve and said she had decided that he had resigned when it clearly said that he would not resign on the day. Now it is important to realise since the previous Friday when the cosy deal was in place that Steve remained on the council website and email system. The Tuesday 9th Jan when Donna acted he was immediately removed. It was clear that week that Donna was not prepared to listen and try and resolve the matter. So after discussion with Steve it was agreed that I would act on his behalf to do the Judicial Review.He would concentrate on the by election just in case.

The Sunday 14th Jan I sent Donna Hall and the Council a pre action letter - I had now put them on formal notice that if they continued they would be taken to court. It was quite clearly spelt out. I heard from one of my sources that the council just laughed it off saying Gareth can't do it. They didn't even respond.

We had to go through the court procedure inc moving the hearing from London to Manchester at the Courts request as they like it to be heard locally. We all agreed.

1st Hearing

So last week at the first hearing I had prepared all the papers and arguments for Steve so we argued that what Donna had done was illegal and should be stopped.The Council asked for it to be thrown out as I had not given them notice of my intention and acted swiftly. Mr Hon Justice kerr said that I had done that on the 14th Jan and although it may not be laid out like a lawyer would do it was quite clear and specific that they knew full well what would happen. They then tried to argue that he had resigned but the Judge said no he didn't and this hearing was to ask for permission to get an injunction to stop the By Election and get a JR meeting for Steve. The judge was damning in my opinion because he said as soon as Donna had received Steve's email that he sent on the 8th  she did not only ignore it but "accelerated" the the election process. He was impressed. He said that he would grant Steve permission for the JR Hearing as he had a very strong case against the Council. The Council's barrister said the judge could not stop the election as Donna Hall, whilst the Chief Executive of the council was acting in her role as Returning Officer role and that is separate from the council and because we named Wigan Council on the papers we served then Donna Hall would be bond by any injunction in her role as Chief Executive but not in her role as Returning Officer. To do that we needed to add Donna Hall on personally as Returning Officer. The judge was not happy and said before the hearing the council should have added Donna Hall on as an interested party if that was going to be part of their argument to not stop the by election. He was thinking of adding her there and then and getting her into his court room the following day so she would be bound by the injunction. The Council said she would not have enough time to get her own legal advice. The judge said at the end of the hearing that the Council should work me and Steve to resolve this mess. Yet another opportunity for Donna to resolve the matter. I wrote to her on the following Friday Night and said we should sort this out and if she didn't stop this then we would take her back to court the following week and stop it. I gave her till 5pm on Monday to do this and respond. She said she had taken legal advice ( we will come back to this in a bit ) and then decided that she would continue with the by election. Now over the weekend I was preparing papers to serve on Donna Hall on Tuesday to take her back into the High Court on Wednesday - the day before the by-election. I knew that I had dropped the ball a bit not adding her on the papers personally at the first hearing but then again the Judge could have added her when the \council said she was separate in her role as RO than Chief Executive. So I knew that we only had one more chance and I started to discuss the case with Piers Coleman and his team at K&L Gates over the weekend with what I was doing and if they would be interested in being instructed by Steve and to take the case on because I didn't want any slip ups. When Donna came back and said no they said to be in their offices in London the following day. Serious money now on the table and the stakes are now higher!

2nd Hearing

The second hearing the judge was not happy and said he was going to sort this mess out and hear the injunction application and and also the Judicial Review. The Council argued that when he used the word resignation on his first email on the 8th Jan that was it, but the judge said if you look at the sentence it says it was his intention. The council realised they were going to lose the argument that he had not resigned so they tried to stop the injunction. They claimed that because 2 people had sign the requisition then the election had to go ahead.  The judge disregarded that saying that if he and another person went a signed a requisition and delivered it to their returning officer then the they would have to call an election even though there was no vacant seat which then brought it back to the Donna Hall who never had any power to call the election in the first place and RO can only take and accept 2 signatures if there is a valid seat.

The Council then argued that the election should go ahead and then if Mr Jones didn't win then we would have to go to court and then have a hearing to remove that person first and then we would have to go back again and have a Judicial Review to put Steve back in. I thought that was what the council would say and that would create more court time and waste more money. The Judge said the election petition was not valid because like he keeps saying there was never a seat vacant in the first place. and therefore if there was a court hearing to remove that person then it would be wrong because there was never a seat.

He said that Donna had not taken legal advice after  I sent the email on the Friday before - her barrister said that was not true as she had consulted Wigan council's head of Legal services on the matter but she hadn't taken independent advice. So we can all see who Donna is going to try and sack for this?  As I have said Donna should have seeked outside counsel advice but she refused to do it. All this mess was her doing for one reason she wasn't going to let the opposition stop her and she was going to win and ignore us and it took the extraordinary and highly serious steps of gong to the high court twice.

So we know the legal reasons for the win for Steve but also you can see it always leads back to one person actions - Donna Hall's and for that reason she should be sacked.