Dennehy, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Ealing

Dennehy, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Ealing

The Committee was entitled to find that the claimant's blog comments failed to treat others with respect and brought the Council and the office of Councillor into disrepute. While the finding and sanctions engaged Article 10, the interference was proportionate and justified under Article 10(2) because the comments were not political expression but an unjustified attack on a section of the public, and the sanctions were limited to a request for apology and publication of the decision.

Parties
Claimant: Benjamin Dennehy; Defendant: London Borough of Ealing
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission Hearing
Outcome
Permission for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Local Government Standards, Judicial Review, Code of Conduct for Councillors
Administrative Law Human Rights Freedom of Expression Local Government Standards Judicial Review Code of Conduct for Councillors

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjamin Dennehy

Claimant

London Borough of Ealing

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Standards Committee gave adequate reasons for its decision
  2. 2 Whether the Committee's decision was unreasonable or irrational
  3. 3 Whether the Committee's decision was a disproportionate interference with the claimant's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The Committee was entitled to find that the claimant's blog comments failed to treat others with respect and brought the Council and the office of Councillor into disrepute. While the finding and sanctions engaged Article 10, the interference was proportionate and justified under Article 10(2) because the comments were not political expression but an unjustified attack on a section of the public, and the sanctions were limited to a request for apology and publication of the decision.

Court Disposition

Permission for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Application for judicial review refused
  • No further orders made