search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Northampton judicial review: the story so far


CAMPAIGNERS appeared victori- ous last month when a judicial review said


Northamptonshire County


Council’s plans to decommission 21 libraries were unlawful. However, in her judgement the judge, Mrs Justice Yip, asked the council and the successful campaigners to come up with some ideas of their own before suggesting a remedy. On 27 August, 10 days after the judgement was published, and following negotiations by the parties involved, the courts have now quashed the council’s decision to close its libraries. This is despite the council’s arguments that it had revised the plan in the light of the


Not just procedure


says lawyer IT is not clear what the judgement adds to the definition or application of “a com- prehensive and efficient library service” as required by the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964.


Caroline Barrett, a solicitor in the Pub- lic Law & Human Rights Department at Irwin Mitchell agreed that the decision was based mainly on procedural fail- ings – that the council decision mak- ing process was flawed – but she said: “This judgement is a clear warning to local authorities contemplating similar decisions. Decisions have to be made in a lawful manner and cannot be based sole- ly on financial considerations,” adding: “Yes, the decisions were found to be un- lawful largely due to procedural process- es, but the judge also stated that she is not convinced the council would have taken the same decision if the process had been properly followed.” She said: “In judicial review proceedings if you can’t show that the decision would have been materially different, even if the proper process had been followed, then the courts have to reject the case.” Caroline also points to the judge’s com-


ment that: “The flaws in the defendant’s decision making which I have identified are such that I consider that the whole question of library provision needs to be revisited by the defendant, paying attention to its legal obligations and all material considerations.”


September 2018


judgement. The council also asked for leave to appeal the decision and this was refused. The implications of these further deci- sions are not yet clear. The original judgement said that the council’s decision-making processes around its library provision broke down under increasing financial pressure. Northamptonshire County Council’s Cab- inet had originally chosen the least severe of three options presented to it. But when the council’s precarious financial situation worsened it changed to a more severe one. The judge said: “It is not clear that the Cabinet fully understood that they were taking the decision to close libraries.… once they were being asked to make a


decision that would lead to closures, there was a clear need for the Cabinet to address the statutory test. They did not do that.” She said: “This was a serious error infecting the decisions of the Cabinet on 27 February 2018 and 13 March 2018” and, in her concluding paragraphs, she said the decisions made on these dates should be quashed. But in her judgement she made it clear


that she was looking for a practical solu- tion to a difficult situation. “It would be unfortunate if this litigation


were to distract the defendant from the serious business of seeking to resolve the financial crisis while meeting its statutory duties across its range of services.”


Northamptonshire County Council. Picture © BDP CILIP calls for ‘64 Act clarity


AFTER the decision and publication of the judgement Nick Poole, Chief Executive of CILIP, called on the Secretary of State for Culture, Jeremy Wright, to clarify the meaning of “comprehensive and efficient” in the 1964 Public Libraries and Muse- ums Act. He said: “There is currently insufficient guidance under the 1964 Public Librar- ies and Museums Act as to what con- stitutes a ‘comprehensive and efficient’


library service that every local authority is required to provide by statute. We call on the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport – who has statutory duties to oversee and improve public libraries in England – to provide satisfactory guidance for Councils on their duties under the Act. This lack of clarity causes unnecessary confusion for the public, staff, and local and national government alike.”


INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL 15


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60