R (East Riding of Yorkshire Council) v The Joint Committee for the purpose of making appointments to the Humberside Police Authority
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 December 2000 |
| Date | 19 December 2000 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Court and Reference:Administrative Court , CO/3470/2000
: Rafferty J
Appearances:T Straker QC and R Palmer (instructed by Sharp Pritchard Solicitors) for the Council; A Pardoe QC for the Joint Committee
: Whether a Joint Committee, in making appointments to a Police Authority, is required to take into account Independent councillors
: The Joint Committee was responsible for making appointments to the Police Authority from 4 councils. The total membership of the 4 councils was 211, comprising 101 Labour members, 59 Conservative, 37 Liberal democrat, and 14 Independents. In making the appointments and in seeking to ensure a representative membership, the Joint Committee excluded consideration of Independent members on the grounds that they were not members of a political party. One Liberal Democrat member was appointed and 5 Labour members. The Council challenged the decision and argued that there should have been 2 Liberal Democrats and 4 Labour members. A letter from the Home Office had said that its view was that Independent members should be taken into account when calculating political balance and, so far as practicable, should be allocated seats on the Authority in proportion to their numbers on the councils.
1. This is an application for judicial review of the 4 September 2000 decision of the Joint Committee for the purpose of making appointments to the Humberside Police Authority ("the joint committee") to appoint members of the police authority and/or to resolve that it was entitled to disregard independent councillors in the exercise of its duty to ensure that the members it appoints to the Humberside Police Authority reflect the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among the members of the relevant councils taken as a whole. The relief sought is certiorari to quash the decision, and a stay of the implementation of any decision purportedly made on the 4th.
2. On 1 May 1996, Humberside County Council and the District Councils within that area were replaced by 4 unitary authorities, who assumed responsibility for the County District Councils' functions. Those authorities are the East Riding of Yorkshire, Kingston-Upon-Hull, North East Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire. Because the police area for Humberside covered all 4 areas it was necessary for them to constitute a joint committee responsible for the appointment of 9 members to the Humberside Police Authority under Sched 12 Police Act 1996.
3. The joint committee met on 1 June 2000. In that meeting, for the purpose of making appointments, the committee is said to have failed to reflect the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among the members of the 4 councils taken as a whole, as required by Police Act 1996, s. 4, Sched 2, para 4(1)(b). It had decided to appoint 5 Labour councillors, 3 Conservatives, and 1 Liberal Democrat. The East Riding Council contended that it should have appointed 4 Labour, 3 Conservatives and 2 Liberal Democrats, so as to reflect the proper balance. It had arrived at its result by excluding from consideration councillors who were Independents on the grounds, semble, that Independents are not members of political parties. The East Riding was granted permission to apply for judicial review of the decision by Hidden J on 8 June 2000. Kingston-Upon-Hull opposed the application.
4. By a consent order on 16 August 2000, the decision was quashed, but on the limited basis that the meeting of 1 June 2000 was legally flawed as it had failed to make appointments, instead voting to maintain an existing allocation (between the 4 councils) and had left it to the councils themselves to make appointments to the Police Authority. In consequence the question of appointments to the Police Authority was remitted to the joint committee.
5. It met on 4 September 2000, and considered a report by its Clerk, Mr Jim Leivers (Chief Executive of North East Lincolnshire). He recommended that the committee should include independent members in their assessment of the balance, as per the joint opinion of counsel, Mr Supperstone QC and Miss Laing, which he had commissioned and which was before the committee.
6. The joint committee concluded as before. Its decision of 4 September 2000, reaffirmed on 6 September 2000, is now challenged.
7. The total membership of the 4 councils is 211, comprising 101 Labour members, 59 Conservative, 37 Liberal democrat, and 14 Independents. Thus the balance of parties across the membership as a whole is, in percentage terms, Labour 47.86, Conservative 27.96, and Liberal Democrat 17.53.
8. Provisions governing the functions and proceedings of a joint committee are to be found in the Local Government Act 1972 ("the 1972 Act") and the Police Act 1996 ("the 1996 Act"). There are also provisions as to political balance within the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 ("the 1989 Act"). Section 3 Police Act 1996 establishes for each police area a police authority defined in s. 1. By s. 4, each police authority consists of 17 members, subject to the Secretary of State's power to increase by order. Section 4 gives effect to Sched 2. Para 1(1)(a) of Sched 2 provides that, where a police authority is to consist of 17 members, "9 of those members shall be members of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MR. William Graham v The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government & The Regions and Royal Borough of WINDSOR and MAIDENHEAD
...Britain's Heritage v Secretary of State for the Environment [1991] 1 WLR 153 applied in Macgay v Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] PLCR 21). However, relief will only be granted if the claimant is substantially prejudiced by the failure to give proper reasons as Lord Bridge's de......