Janik, R (on the application of) v Standards Board for England

A tribunal may refuse to adjourn disciplinary proceedings where a party relies on ill health, but strong facts are ordinarily required when the condition prevents participation. Relevant considerations include the quality of the medical evidence, the likely duration of the incapacity, previous delay, the public interest in prompt resolution, whether the case depends on oral credibility, and whether the party can present the case with assistance or adjustments.

Legal representation is not automatically required. The court will not normally interfere with an expert tribunal’s sanction unless it is wrong in principle, based on an incorrect approach, or clearly wrong overall. Disqualification from elected office is compatible with Convention rights where supported by properly established grounds.

Mr Paul Janik, a former councillor, brought a statutory appeal under section 79(15) of the Local Government Act 2000 against a Case Tribunal decision finding breaches of the Council’s Code of Conduct and imposing one year’s disqualification.

The Tribunal had refused a further adjournment sought on grounds of stress, proceeded after Mr Janik withdrew, and determined the allegations in his absence. The appeal challenged that decision, the fairness of the investigation, the absence of publicly funded legal assistance, alleged bias arising from the Tribunal’s local-government experience, the substantive findings, the sanction, and its compatibility with Convention rights.

1. Adjournment and absence. The Tribunal was entitled to refuse a further adjournment and proceed in Mr Janik’s absence. In ordinary circumstances, where illness prevents a litigant from presenting a case, an adjournment should be granted and strong facts are needed to refuse it. Here, however, the medical evidence was limited, gave no adequate prognosis or explanation of the consequences of attendance, and was produced immediately before the hearing. There had already been an adjournment and substantial delay. Mr Janik had not prepared a response despite having had ample time, while continuing to perform some councillor functions.
2. The evidence was almost entirely documentary and the case did not depend on resolving oral credibility disputes. The continuing nature of the alleged conduct and the public interest in resolving allegations concerning events dating from 2003 also supported proceeding. Article 6 added nothing because proceedings in a party’s absence are permissible where there is sufficient reason.
3. Fairness and representation. The investigation was not shown to be unfair or biased. Mr Janik had been invited to interview and given an opportunity to respond to the draft report, but did not do so. The volume of material did not make legal representation mandatory. The issues were disciplinary, largely documentary, and neither legally nor factually complex.
4. Bias. Experience of local government qualified the Tribunal members to sit; it did not disqualify them. The substantive findings were adequately supported.
5. Sanction. The court would not substitute its own view for that of the expert Tribunal. The one-year disqualification was not wrong in principle, based on an incorrect approach, or clearly disproportionate. Properly established restrictions on eligibility for elected office can promote representative democracy and are not necessarily incompatible with Article 3 of the First Protocol.
6. The appeal was dismissed.

• Case Tribunal, Adjudication Panel for England: On 24 March 2006, found breaches of the Council’s Code of Conduct and imposed one year’s disqualification.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The statutory appeal under section 79(15) of the Local Government Act 2000 was dismissed.