The Royal Courts of Justice in London has ordered that Surrey County Council’s library plans will be subject to a Judicial Review. In a four and a half hour hearing on Friday, Judge Thornton QC concluded that the case against SCC had sufficient prospects of success to warrant the full scrutiny of the High Court.
During the lengthy hearing, SCC raised a succession of technical points to avoid their plans being scrutinised, including: striking out the claimant, Lucy Williams; stopping a second claimant, Nick Dorrington, from being added; and halting the claim altogether because SCC argued the proceedings were issued “out of time”. But Judge Thornton dismissed each one of the Council’s attempts.
The Judge also turned down SCC’s application to revoke the Injunction placed upon them to stop progressing with CPLs, but did accept special pleading from the Council to exempt Byfleet library. The Judge, however, did not order SCC to open Byfleet library as a CPL and, should the Council do so, it will be in the full knowledge that the library may well be returned to full staffing and full systems capability in just a few weeks, should the Judicial Review order it. Local residents will decide whether opening Byfleet as a CPL now, rather than pause just a few short weeks so they can proceed with certainty, is good administration.
We are very pleased with yesterday’s outcome and were heartened by the Judge’s comments that SLAM has shown a considerable commitment and dedication to the library service, and has shown significant resilience in coping with the hard work and stress necessary to bring to the Court’s attention this “potential abuse of power” by Surrey County Council.
This moment has been a long time coming. Surrey County Council has not consulted with library users, has not assessed the impacts of Community Partnered Libraries on the affected communities, and has avoided scrutiny of its plans at every turn. Now, finally, the Council’s plans will be held up to the scrutiny they have lacked throughout. It’s just a shame it’s taken an appeal to the High Court to achieve this.
Judge Thornton has requested that the Judicial Review take place in the week beginning 20th February.
Fundraising
Please, please help if you can. It has taken considerable effort to get to this stage but we need help in paying the “Community Contribution” towards the legal costs. We will probably find out next week the exact level of Contribution but it is likely to be in the region of £15,000. We are very grateful to people who have already donated and helped in raising approx £3,000 so far. Any help you can give will be gratefully received. Please see out fundraising tab.
Thank you
Reblogged this on Surrey Heath Residents Blog.
[...] the ever-excellent SLAM (Surrey Libraries Action Movement); I make no bones in reproducing their latest blog here (and I promise to do some more blogging [...]
Excellent, with more actions like this we can ensure that elected representatives:
Cannot take action to ensure budgets for essential services are preserved where and when required without being bogged down in legal actions
Councils spend money fighting to defend their decisions, such as closing libraries in the most affluent town in the country, even if there’s one a couple of miles away
Ensure that the most affluent towns in society get preferential treatment, as the fear of legal action is greater should they try to consolidate or close services in area where people can afford to take legal action
Are far more prudent about opening or expanding new services, for fear of such actions should they need to subsequently to close or reduce them
Hello Rob.
Thanks for your comments. We DO approve all comments here, even if we don’t agree with them, unlike a certain Council we know which does not tolerate alternative views to their own, and certainly would not print them.
I do understand the points you raise, and a Council must be able to implement policy in an efficient manner. Having said that, it is important for our democracy that authorities are properly held to account by the residents they serve and the taxpayers that fund them.
Authorities must also not abuse their power and MUST act within the law.
I don’t know if you’ve seen SCC’s recent Corporate Strategy document. If not, I would recommend you read it. It contains some astonishing admissions, such as:
The Council:
“is failing residents badly”
“is not effective”
“some services close to failure”
“finances spiralling out of control”
“has little credibility”.
These are all the Council’s own words, not ours.
It is very difficult for an individual resident to hold the Council to account but someone needs to. I am very pleased that we are doing so. I believe that what we are doing is in the broader Public Interest in this case.
Lee Godfrey
I think two points which would help decide whether this action is “right” would be:
1. Are you trying to find a legal loophole to prevent the council executing their responsibility, or do you believe it is not their responsibility?
2. What would be the result if everyone who was financially able to do so took their grievances with the council to court, rather than the ballot box?
I don’t know the answer to the first, I would certainly believe councils are responsible for deciding the appropriate opening hours, type of staffing, existance or closure of libraries and would feel somewhat amazed if the courts told me they weren’t free to exercise this responsibility as expediently as they deemed fit.
With the second, I’d say it would lead to a far more unequal society where the rich get to keep the services they want and the poor don’t. For that reason alone I’d urge you to drop your action – the end justifies it.
Hello Rob,
Thanks for your latest comment.
Regarding point 1, it is true that, so far, this case has been fought on technical grounds and many attempts have been made to find legal loopholes to escape through, BUT these technicalities and loopholes have been advanced by the Council, not us. We have sought all along to argue on the central substantive issue of library provision in the affected communities.
As mentioned in my previous response, the Council is at liberty to propose any policy it likes but residents have a right to challenge those policies and, ultimately, if all other avenues are exhausted, to request full scrutiny of the policy in front of a Judge. This is the way our democracy works and thanks heavens for that, I say. I would not want to live in a country where authorites were immune from challenge by the residents they serve.
On point 2, I completely agree with you. I think it would be awful – not to mention undemocratic – if access to the law was restricted to only those that could afford the legal costs. Recourse to the Courts should be open to all, which is why I am personally very much in favour of the principle of legal aid.
The claimant in this case is in receipt of legal aid. Legal aid is the only reason this “potential abuse of power” has been able to be brought before the Courts. There are no wealthy backers at work here, just normal residents with a very firm belief in the benefits libraries and librarians bring to our communities. That said, the Legal Services Commission, which granted legal aid, has assessed that a “Community Contribution” towards the costs is appropriate because the case is in the broader public interest. Any help towards that Contribution would be gratefully received – “15, 10 or 5, to keep our libraries alive!”
Thanks again for your input. I know that SLAM, of which I am one small part, are open to debating all the issues involved out in the open.
Lee
Hello Rob,
Interesting to see that you have taken to trolling on this blog too. I have read your unpleasant, nasty, drink-fuelled comments elsewhere. You need to take a long look at yourself. SLAM are trying to prevent a “potential abuse of power”. You attack them and defend the power abusers. Is that how you get your kicks? How sad.
Richard
Interesting view, Richard. I think trolling would be characterised by personal attack (e.g. calling a contributer ‘sad’) overly emotive language (e.g. calling elected representatives attempting to discharge their duties by amending the staffing of libraries ‘abusers’) and stating views which one does n’t truly hold in order to raise an arguement. On the final point, I find it more incredulous that you earnestly believe it is a good idea to hire lawyers to force a council to higher lawyers in order to decide whether they have the right to decide the staffing of libraries than you can possibly believe that I don’t hold that view. However I respect you right to hold opinions which I find offensive and take actions which I believe to be counter to the common good.
Whatever mistake I made on leftoflightwater in December I have apologised for and retracted, would you have me silinced henceforth because of this?
Perhaps, as Lee and I have done, we should either debate a point without resorting to attack and insult or just not comment?
Slamupdate,
Could you explain the £18K target, please? I’m not sure how these community awards work.
Cheers,
Rob
Hi Rob,
The Legal Services Commission (LSC) is the body that grants legal aid. The two claimants in this case are in receipt of legal aid but the LSC has decided that, due to a large number of people standing to benefit if the Judicial Review finds in the two claimants’ favour, then it is right for those people (that will benefit) to contribute to the costs.
SLAM has committed to helping the two claimants so we are raising this money on behalf of the Communities potentially benefitting. This is a double-edged sword, of course: it is is nice that the LSC recognises that we are acting in the interests of the “Community” and that everyone in the Community will benefit from our action, but it
does leave us with a mountain to climb.
But the LSC hasn’t decided what level the “Contribution” should be yet and, in my view, is acting very unfairly in leaving it until the Judicial Review is almost upon us to let us know. So we’ve said 18,000 is our target although we sincerely hope it will be a LOT less than that, especially given the short amount of time we have to raise the money.
Lee
I find it difficult not to agree with much of what Rob Bane has said, I certainly am not in favour of closing libraries but when parents of disabled children are losing respite care across the county and social services are taking a huge hit it seems strange to me that the library restructuring, while trying to keep services running across the county and available to all residents is the only council budgetary cut being subjected to legal action. I think priorites might be wrong in this case and its sad that members of our society only feel the need to fight for their own causes and not for those who can not fight for themselves.
Hello Imogen,
Sorry for the delay in replying. The author of this note has been in hospital having an operation so has been unavailable.
I do understand the point you raise. I think most people would be sympathetic to a campaign on behalf of parents of disabled children losing their respite care. From a personal perspective, I would certainly support that cause and if you are running such a campaign, please let me know the details as I would like to help if I can.
SLAM also has contacts with other campaigns in Surrey that you may be able to link up with, and that may be able to provide support. Please let us know the details of your campaign and we will put you in touch.
Individuals supporting SLAM are from a broad variety of backgrounds and have a broad range of interests. All are multi-dimensional and I am convinced that at least some share your views about cutbacks in public services and are not focussing all their efforts on the libraries campaign but engage in other voluntary efforts.
But SLAM as an organisation constitutionally exists to defend and promote the library service and it would be beyond SLAM’s remit to campaign on other issues, no matter how important and worthy those issues are.
We can’t, therefore, make priority decisions on a range of public service cutbacks and the merits and priorities of them, and then decide on our actions based on a prioritised list of worthy causes.
All we say is that we fervently believe that libraries and librarians contribute greatly to the quality of all of our lives and we respect and appreciate the work they do. We will fight the corner for libraries and librarians and we make no apologies for doing so – it is our reason for being.
Hope that makes sense.
Lee
Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense and does seem unfair to be left so late to be told of the level required.