Gloucestershire and Somerset libraries Judicial Review

In future times I will be able to say "I was there"

Not being a stenographer, and having only recently become involved/interested in this case, I found some of the arguments hard to keep up with so what follows is my impression of what happened in the court.What each side said is as near to verbatim as I could get in longhand.

The judgement is that the action taken by both county councils is unlawful on one of the three counts on which the claim was made – that of failing to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty.

The hearing yesterday, 16^th November 2011, was to determine what relief was to be awarded (if any since, as the defendants' QC Mr Goudi said in his submission, Judge McKenna could say that no relief was to be awarded). This was following a Judicial Review hearing which took place over three days in the Birmingham High Court in September.

We started with the claimants' QC arguing comprehensively, and at some length with a lot of case references, that restitution of the position before the unlawful library closures occurred with payment of 100% of costs was what was being sought although the Judge might want to look at partial restitution or even partial payment. The system in this country is "winner takes all" and as winners the claimants would want 100% of their costs paid by the defendants.

QC for the defendants (and I know I’m biased here) had only one redeeming feature – he was more clearly spoken than the Judge or the claimants' QC.

The points I noted from his submission:

• Making a judgement does not necessarily mean getting any remedy – the Lord Justice has discretion.
  
  
• That discretion could be exercised by:
  
  a) a simple declaration [I wasn’t entirely clear about this but it seems as though Judge McKennan could have administered a legal slap on the wrist and nothing more];
  
  b) making a quashing order confined only to the particular libraries named in the claim;
  
  c) making a quashing order regarding static libraries but not involving the mobile library service; or
  
  d) have regard to the witness statements from the library officers of both counties as to actions such as redundancy and cessation of all temporary staff contract, and disposal of mobile library vehicles.

Helen Mountfield for the claimants then had the opportunity to respond. This was mainly a repetition of her earlier submission that the claimants’ case had been won – the unlawful action should be quashed and 100% of costs should be awarded. She was glad to note that earlier references, which had been verbal, to the hysterical behaviour and exaggerated hyperbole of the claimants had not been repeated in the defendants' submission.

Judge McKennan summed up by repeating a number of points from the defendants' submission [I don’t know about anyone else but this bit felt rather like a cat playing with a mouse] e.g.

1. The claimants’ success has been limited
2. It is highly likely that the decisions made will be re-made (possibly, to use Mr Goudi’s words, they will be more draconian).
3. Subsequent assessments were made with regard to executive decisions, particularly with regard to the use of volunteers.
4. Restoration of the status quo could be seen as prejudicial to good administration given the financial situation of the local authorities concerned. 

However, [ears prick up, fingers double-crossed etc] said His Lordship:

these matters are significantly outweighed by the ignoring of the Public Sector Equality Duty and is, therefore, in Miss Mountfield’s  persuasive words, bad government.

I award a full quashing order – not to do so would be a dereliction of my duty and give the wrong message to any other local authority minded to make similar decisions.

And 100% costs awarded.

The leader of Gloucestershire County Council said later that the local authority had lost on a “technical point”.

Baloney, and other considerably less polite responses!

---