Scrivens v Ethical Standards Officer

The existence of a personal or prejudicial interest under the statutory local-government code is determined objectively. A member’s honest and reasonable mistake about the existence of an interest does not prevent a finding that the code was breached. The same objective approach applies to the duties to disclose a personal interest and to withdraw from a meeting when a prejudicial interest is engaged, subject to any statutory dispensation. A Court of Appeal observation made without argument on the point was not binding authority. A reasonable mistake may remain relevant to the penalty, but not to whether there was a breach.

Victor Scrivens appealed under section 79(15) of the Local Government Act 2000 against findings by a case tribunal of the Adjudication Panel for England. The tribunal found breaches of the parish council model code concerning the disclosure of a personal interest and withdrawal because of a prejudicial interest, and suspended him for four months. The appeal concerned only the legal test: whether the member’s own honest and rational view governed, or whether the existence of an interest and compliance with the code were assessed objectively.

1. Appeal dismissed. The tribunal correctly applied an objective test to both the existence of a personal or prejudicial interest and compliance with the relevant code provisions.
2. Paragraphs 7 to 10 of the parish council model code required an objective assessment. A member must disclose a personal interest when it is objectively apparent and must withdraw where a prejudicial interest is objectively established and the matter is being considered.
3. Section 81 of the Local Government Act 2000 reinforced that conclusion. Its mandatory language required disclosure and restrictions on participation, subject only to statutory dispensation. It did not permit an additional exception for an honest and reasonable mistake.
4. The objective approach was consistent with the statutory purpose of promoting high standards of conduct and avoiding the appearance of impropriety. It was also consistent with the objective test for apparent bias in Porter v Magill, [2001] UKHL 67, Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd, [2003] UKHL 35, and Georgiou v London Borough of Enfield, [2004] EWHC 779 (Admin).
5. The tribunal was not bound by the irrationality qualification in paragraph 76 of R (Richardson) v North Yorkshire County Council, [2003] EWCA Civ 1860. The point had not been argued or considered there and was treated as assumed rather than decided. The principles in Baker v The Queen, [1975] AC 774, Re Hetherington, [1990] 1 Ch 1, and R (Kadhim) v Brent Housing Board, [2001] 2 WLR 1674, supported that conclusion.
6. A reasonable mistake could affect the appropriate sanction, but not whether the code had been breached. The appeal was dismissed, with no consequential orders.

1. Adjudication Panel for England, case tribunal: found breaches of the parish council code and imposed a four-month suspension on 7 December 2004.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal under section 79(15) of the Local Government Act 2000.