Agenda item

Grounds of appeal and supporting documentation.

The Chairman then invited Mr Harrower, on behalf of Ms Pearson, to set out the grounds for the appeal.

Mr Harrower firstly made reference to the failure of the Corporation (as represented by the Comptroller and City Solicitor) to make written representations in response to the appeal, or to attend the appeal, and put forward the view that as no written representations had been made in response to the written appeal, and in the absence of the Corporation attending the appeal hearing, there was no opposition to the appeal on breach and sanction and that the appeal should therefore be allowed for this reason alone.

Mr Harrower then went on to outline the 6 grounds for the appeal set out in the circulated documentation, in summary:-

(1) Ms Pearson had no DPI in the item considered at the Planning and Transportation Committee on 29 January as the item (whether or not to delegate determination of a planning application to London Borough of Islington) was an inter-authority jurisdictional matter rather than determination of the planning application itself.

(2) There was no breach of paragraph 13 of the Code because the decision on 29 January could not and/or did not have an impact on the value of the DPI, i.e. the lease of the flat in Hatfield House.

(3) There was no breach of paragraph 13 because Ms Pearson was unaware that she had a DPI in the matter being considered on 29 January.

(4) There was no breach of paragraph 13 because there was a reasonable excuse for Ms Pearson’s participation in the meeting on 29 January in that the item was added at a very late stage to the agenda for that meeting and with the resulting impact on the opportunity to obtain a dispensation.

(5) In deciding that there had been a breach of paragraph 13 of the Code, the Hearing Sub (Standards) Committee took into account the fact that Ms Pearson should have sought guidance from the Monitoring Officer or Clerk to the Committee before participating in the meeting on 29 January and that this was an irrelevant factor.

 (6) There were procedural irregularities on the part of the Corporation in the decision making process leading up to and including the delegation decision on 29 January, and in the complaint against Ms Pearson which followed, such as to amount, singly or in any combination, to an abuse of process which should prevent any finding of breach of the Code against her.

Mr Harrower also referred to the Hearing Sub Committee’s decision to impose a sanction and contended amongst other things that this was wrongly imposed by reason that Ms Pearson had refused to comply with a condition which that Sub Committee sought to impose without authority to do so.

The Sub Committee then heard from Ms Pearson, noting her comments and clarification on the matter, including the seeking of advice from Mr Harrower on her potential interest and the personal impact on her since being informed that her actions at the January meeting constituted a possible breach of the Code and Localism Act and the resulting stress of the investigation and hearing process.

The Sub Committee then briefly adjourned at 11.17am and reconvened at 11.22am. 

Discussion and questions then commenced and relating to the first point made by Mr Harrower regarding the lack of written submissions and attendance by the Corporation, the Sub Committee noted the Chairman’s statement that the email contained in the agenda pack under item 13 confirmed that, whilst the Comptroller and City Solicitor would be submitting no further written representations on the grounds of appeal, the Sub Committee should refer to the documentation considered by the Hearing Sub (Standards) Committee.

The Sub Committee then proceeded to consider the 6 grounds of appeal, referring to the detailed documentation in the agenda pack and asking questions to elicit further information and to clarify particular points raised, and Mr Harrower explained the background to Ms Pearson’s request to him for advice on her ability to take part in the urgent item at the Planning and Transportation meeting and the timescale available to her for seeking a dispensation. Ms Pearson said that she was the only person that could ‘speak for the residents on the matter’ and Mr Harrower put forward the view that an email to other committee members outlining her views would not have been as effective as speaking at the meeting. The Sub Committee noted the contention that there was no obligation for Ms Pearson to seek advice from the Comptroller and City Solicitor or the Clerk to the Committee in respect of interests.

Discussion continued and a member of the Sub Committee asked whether Ms Pearson had regarded the delegation as an important decision, and members noted her reply that it was important for residents to have the ability to have ‘a say’ in the matter and whether the planning application should  be dealt with by the City of London, with more residences in the City than Islington potentially affected by the application. Ms Pearson also said that there could be no effect on her property value in where a vote on the actual application was to be taken.

Members then considered the view of Mr Harrower that the “matter” being considered on 29 January, for the purposes of paragraph 13 of the Code, could and should not be conflated with a determination of the planning application and noted his summary of the views of James Goudie, QC and Thomas Sharpe, QC on this point. Mr Harrower also told the meeting that the view of the Investigating Officer, John Austin was that there was no evidence of impact on property value arising from the 29 January meeting decision.

The Sub Committee adjourned for lunch at 12.45pm and reconvened again at 1.30pm

Members continued with questions and Mr Harrower raised the matter of perception, making the point that this term is not used in paragraph 13 of the Code of Conduct and that in his view perception was therefore not a ‘valid test’. He then went on to raise the matter of the condition for criminal liability in s 34(1) of the 2011 Localism Act (no reasonable excuse) that he considered should be imported into paragraph 13 of the Code. The Sub Committee noted the contention that since Ms Pearson was not aware on 29 January that she had a DPI in the decision to be taken, there was no breach of paragraph 13 of the Code. Mr Harrower also contended that s 31(1)(c) of that Act (awareness of DPI) ought also to be imported into paragraph 13.  Mr Oldham, QC then asked questions to clarify these views and the Sub Committee duly noted Mr Harrower’s comments that the Code was to be read by laymen and that whilst the essence is set out in paragraph 13, it would be appropriate for the sensible interpretation of it to also be based on other relevant material.

Debate then turned to guidance on the matter and Mr Harrower made the point that, with the timescale available, Ms Pearson had turned to him as a former solicitor for legal advice as he was available to offer it. Mr Harrower stated that it would be wrong to contend that the Monitoring Officer was required to be consulted, as the Code did not provide for this, and that it would be inappropriate to say that the Clerk to the Committee should have been consulted as that person did not have a legal qualification. Mr Harrower said that he had practised law for 30 years and did not consider that a DPI was applicable on 29 January as there was no financial consequences for Ms Pearson and the item for consideration was not the planning application itself. Members also noted Ms Pearson’s confirmation that for another committee meeting she had been able to consult the Comptroller’s representative and had taken that officer’s view that she should not take part in that particular item. 

The Sub Committee then considered Mr Harrower’s comments on alleged procedural irregularities, in both the handling of the delegation issue item at Planning and Transportation Committee and the instigation of proceedings that followed against Ms Pearson, and his contention that these amounted to an abuse of process that should be taken account of as part of the appeal in view of ‘justice and fairness’. At the conclusion of this part of the hearing, and in response to questions from the Sub Committee, Ms Pearson again confirmed that she had suffered personal stress as a result of the case that had made her question whether she would stand again in future elections.

The Sub Committee adjourned for a short period at 3.25pm and reconvened again at 3.38pm.

Mr Harrower then reaffirmed his earlier comments in support of Ms Pearson’s grounds of appeal and the Chairman, on behalf of the Sub Committee thanked Ms Pearson and Mr Harrower for their contributions, both written and oral.