Taylor v Honiton Town Council & Anor

A parish council is not required to reconsider a principal authority’s decision on an allegation that a parish councillor breached the parish code of conduct. The statutory scheme places investigation and decision-making on the principal authority, with the safeguard of independent persons.

Following a breach, Localism Act 2011, s.28(11) permits action that is not exhaustively defined. Subject to legality, proportionality and freedom of expression, a local authority may require training designed to enable a councillor to perform public functions safely and effectively. Suspension and disqualification are unavailable sanctions, and suspension cannot enforce compliance with another sanction.

The claimant, a town councillor, challenged Honiton Town Council’s decision to impose sanctions after East Devon District Council investigated a complaint and found that he had breached the town council’s code of conduct by failing to treat its Town Clerk with courtesy and respect. East Devon recommended censure, publication and training. Honiton imposed those measures and additional restrictions on speaking, committee membership and access to council offices.

Before the hearing, Honiton withdrew the decision and accepted that it lacked power to impose the training requirement under its October policy. The court nevertheless considered the status of East Devon’s findings and whether training could lawfully be required.

1. East Devon’s decision. Under Localism Act 2011, ss.28(6)(b) and 28(9)(b), the principal authority was responsible for investigating and deciding allegations against members of a parish council. The requirement for arrangements involving independent persons would be frustrated if the parish council had to reconsider and replace that decision. Honiton was therefore not entitled to treat East Devon merely as an investigator or adviser. The court declined to decide whether the Act requires breach and sanction decisions to be divided between the two authorities in the precise way adopted here.
2. Available action after breach. Section 28(11) contemplates that a relevant authority may take action after finding non-compliance with a code and does not define or limit that action, apart from sanctions abolished by the statutory scheme. Disqualification and suspension were unavailable. Suspension could not be used to enforce compliance with another requirement, but that did not prevent a lawful requirement to do something.
3. Training requirement. A local authority may require a councillor who has committed a significant code breach to undertake reasonable training on the code’s meaning and application. Such a measure must be lawful and proportionate, and must respect councillors’ freedom of expression in the interests of effective local democracy. The four-stage proportionality analysis in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700 requires consideration of the importance of the objective, rational connection, less intrusive alternatives and fair balance.
4. Application and order. The breach was reasonably regarded as serious because the claimant had accused the Town Clerk of criminal conduct without justification. Training was proportionate. Honiton nevertheless acted unlawfully by applying its October policy and adding sanctions beyond those recommended by East Devon. The Decision was quashed. East Devon’s finding of breach and recommended sanctions were lawful.

First-instance judicial review. The challenged decision was withdrawn during the proceedings, but the court nevertheless determined the two legal questions identified because they remained relevant to the order and to the parties’ future dealings.