The Blogger writes about the doings of a council in the West Midlands - until the general election a Labour fief with that Party holding, at times, as many as 71 of the 72 council seats.
The Blogger wrote regarding the allocation of a council property to a married couple (the couple) who were both employees of the council. More particularly, they were both full-time trade union officials via facility time and very active in the Labour Party. They were also both closely connected to one of the Labour MP's representing the area (and a very powerful one at that.). Importantly they were already resident in the council area.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) does not apply to council house allocations. The Blogger informed the High Court that he had attended a meeting with three serving Labour councillors who informed him that one or more councillors had intervened during the allocation process on behalf of the couple. He also received an anonymous phone call about a different matter where the information provided proved to be accurate. During the call the same allegation of intervention was also made and recorded by The Skidder in a file note. A Land Registry search established that the address was indeed council-owned.
The Blogger told the Court all the above in Affirmation evidence. He stated that in the absence of the ability to do a FOI check he had decided that he could not make a direct allegation of wrongdoing by any party.
In any event (and see also below) it was not initially clear which councillor or councillors had allegedly intervened.
The Blogger decided to write about this matter and fell foul of innuendo rules. He didn't write that the couple HAD received assistance but reported that three serving councillors (of the same political party) had SAID that they had received help from an unnamed councillor. He questioned the couple's eligibility (as two employees of the Council) and joked that he hoped they had "not spent too long on the waiting list."
No complaint was made and the Skidder repeated the allegation (in fact no complaint was made for 211 days.)
On a hearing as to meaning the High Court has decided, to the bemusement of the Blogger, that the publication means that the claimant obtained a council house CORRUPTLY by exploiting her political connections. At present the Skidder's lawyers say there is no prospect of appealing this.....
This raises some important issues for journalists and bloggers. Firstly, as FOI's are not allowed it seems to us that a reporter can only get evidence of the mis-allocation of council (etc) houses via leaks - which are, we assume, potentially illegal? The journo/blogger would then have to decide whether there was a public interest in publication. Yet such allegations are frequently promulgated - see two recent ones from The Sun and Private Eye set out below. Is there a significant legal difference in what the Blogger said and the Sun article? If so, what is it?
Secondly, the Skidder says he always understood that councillors assist would-be tenants on a daily basis. In evidence to the High Court he referred in evidence to The Allocation of Housing (Procedure) Regulations 1997. The Blogger was of the view that councillors may assist local residents obtain housing unless they are ward councillors for the ward where the applicant already lives OR represents the ward where the council house is located.
Is this wrong? If so, the Skidder is not the only one labouring under this misapprehension since other councils take this view. For example, this is from the Wrexham Council website very recently:
At no point did the Skidder publish that a ward councillor was involved. (As it happens a non-ward councillor provided a written statement to the High Court specifically stating that he HAD intervened to assist the couple's application but even though this was a preliminary hearing and the witness was not called to give oral evidence and be tested under cross-examination the Learned Judge seemingly discounted that evidence.)
This seems to us to create a massive elephant-trap for reporters. If there is suspicion as to how someone has seemingly "jumped the queue" via the assistance of a councillor which a journo/blogger thinks reportworthy s/he will have to ascertain (1) whether the councillor was a ward councillor and (2) whether the applicant has "political connections" with the Councillor or Council.
Whatever the actual facts of the present case it would have been totally legal for them to ask a non-ward councillor to assist them but because the Blogger suggested that help was allegedly given because of political connections this amounts, in libel law, to an allegation of corruption liable to damages (in the absence of other defences!)
If any legal eagles out there have any comment on this please email iancrowmultimedia@gmail.com asap.
Incidentally, the case continues.....
From "The Sun":
From "Private Eye":
iancrowmultimedia@gmail.com
