right action to show solidarity with other workers (Curry, 1997, p.218). For its part, the Library Association was in opposition to the removal of the materials:
In our view it is manifestly not right that councillors should allow their per- sonal opinions on a political or industrial matter to stand in the way of the right of access of the public to all publications which can reasonably be provided… The Library Association is deeply concerned that the imposition of these bans consti- tutes a major breach of the traditional principles that public libraries should be a neutral and non-partisan service. – (LAR 88 (4) 1986, p.163).
A judicial review was sought by the publisher and printer of the newspapers, the holding company of the newspapers, and residents in Camden, Hammersmith, Fulham, and Ealing.
An interesting point to note in the case was that advice from both lawyers and librarians to the councils concerned was very much opposed to the action. The summary of the court case cites advice provided by Mr J. Goudie QC, to Islington Borough Council, subsequently circulated to a number of other councils that, “in making any judgement in exercise of its duties [the council] should be guided by the ‘library’ criteria” only and that “other ‘non-library’ considerations however rel- evant to the public interest should not be taken into account.” The summary of the case also highlights that the Director of
20 INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL
Libraries in Camden advised against the ban in the public interest.
Lord Justice Watkins observed that it is “clear to me that the respondents’ reason for imposing the ban was solely that it could used as a weapon in aid of the dismissed print workers” and that the ban “was for the duration of the dispute”. The judge argued that:
How in these circumstances can it be justifiably said that a ban of that kind is consistent with the respondents’ duties under s.7 of the [PLM] Act, the dominant one of which is to provide a comprehen- sive and efficient library service for all persons, and a subordinate one, to have regard to the desirability of securing that facilities are available for reference to printed matter sufficient in range of meet the general requirements and special requirements of adults? – (R v London Borough of Ealing and others, p.32)
Lord Justice Watkins continued later in the judgement that:
I am of the opinion that the ban imposed by the respondents was for an ulterior object. It was inspired by political views which moved the respondents to interfere in an industrial dispute and for that pur- pose to use their powers under this Act… I would go as far to say that no rational local authority would for a moment have thought that such a ban was open to it to impose in discharge of its duty to service libraries.
– (R v London Borough of Ealing and others, p.49)
The judgement becomes even more coruscating later:
[The respondents] deliberately set out to punish the applicants. They had read- ily and easily available a weapon which they proceeded wilfully to use regardless of the library requirements of the public which should have been, but was not then, their concern. It cannot be other than to all sensible and right-minded people alarming, I think, to see such irre- sponsible behaviour by persons elected to serve their interest according to clearly stated law and in defiance of impeccably correct advice. There could hardly be a clearer abuse of power, the remedy for which it is for this court and not the Secretary of State to provide. I would certainly provide it
– (R v London Borough of Ealing and others, p.66)
The much-criticised section seven of the Public Libraries and Museums Act, 1964, utilised as a bulwark against censorship, then, the decision to remove the publica- tion in question declared “ultra vires and void as an abuse of power” (R v London Borough of Ealing and others, p.69). Perhaps, on reflection, we should have been unsurprised regarding the decision of the judicial review in the NI case. While Thomspon felt that public libraries lacked specific statutory protection as censorship was not referenced in the PLMA, in 1972 Irish barrister and academic Paul O’Hig- gins interpreted the PLMA as it related to censorship and offered that,
Autumn 2025
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 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70
