Sanders v Kingston
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 June 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWHC 1145 (Admin) |
| Date | 07 June 2005 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Before Mr Justice Wilkie
Local government - councillor entitled to freedom of expression
A local councillor acting in his capacity as a councillor rather than as a politician was nevertheless entitled to the protection of the right of freedom of speech guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.
Mr Justice Wilkie so held in the Queen's Bench Division in allowing in part the appeal of Neville Sanders under section 19(15) of the Local Government Act 2000 against the decision of a local government case tribunal to disqualify him from being a councillor after a hearing on September 7, 2004.
The respondent, Steven Kingston, was the ethical standards officer appointed by the Standards Board for England who had prosecuted the matter.
Mr Sanders was leader of Peterborough City Council. In 2003 he was interviewed by journalists from newspapers and the BBC about the deaths of soldiers in Northern Ireland.
Perhaps because of a misunderstanding, he made remarks about the death of soldiers caused by the conflict in Northern Ireland when the matter behind the interviews had been a specific tragedy of a death by suicide.
In one interview he was reported to have called for the people of Northern Ireland to apologise for killing soldiers and to hang their heads in shame for involving the English in their own quarrel Mr Sanders' remarks were considered disrespectful and deeply offensive by a local government case tribunal and he was found to have brought the council into disrepute.
Mr Charles Bear, QC and Ms Joanne Clement for Mr Sanders; Mr Kieron Beal for Mr Kingston.
MR JUSTICE WILKIE said that the principal contention by the claimant was that the tribunal had failed to have regard to the fact that article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as to freedom of speech, was engaged.
It was submitted that penalising the claimant constituted an interference with his freedom of expression under article 10.1 which might be justified only if it fell within article 10.2, restricting that freedom only where prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society.
The claimant was right that article 10 was engaged. It was an error for the tribunal to fail to consider it at all.
Was the finding or the imposition of a sanction prima facie...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chegwyn v Standards Board for England
...not wish to delve and not something anyone can properly know. 38 However, the Tribunal refers to two decisions which are material. In sanders v Kingston Wilkie J stated that interfering with the will of the electorate is a very serious thing indeed, and suggested it would be rare in the ext......
-
R Benjamin Dennehy v London Borough of Ealing
...Interference with the right of free speech which impedes political debate must be subjected to particularly close scrutiny: see Sanders v Kingston [2005] LGR 719 in which at page 745h Wilkie J refers to the high level of protection given to expressions of political views. 38. The burden ......
-
R (on the application of Ngole) v University of Sheffield Health and Care Professions Council (Intervener)
...to a person from an ethnic minority." 79 A requirement to treat others 'with respect' was also considered by the High Court in Saunders v. Kingston [2005] EWHC 1145 (Admin) [2005] LGR 719 as entirely capable of being a clear guide to appropriate regulated behaviour, as was a standard prohib......
-
R Lewis Malcolm Calver v The Adjudication Panel for Wales
...8 The framework under the 2000 Act applicable in England and its relationship to Article 10 has been considered by this court in Sanders v Kingston [2005] EWHC 1145 (Admin); Livingstone v Adjudication Panel for England [2006] EWHC 2533 (Admin) and R (Mullaney) v Adjudication Panel for Engla......