Sanders v Kingston

Sanders v Kingston

The appellant's conduct breached paragraphs 2(b) and 4 of the Code of Conduct as it was disrespectful and brought his office into disrepute. The Code was sufficiently precise to be 'prescribed by law'. While Article 10 ECHR was engaged and the tribunal erred in not considering it, the interference was justified as...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Neville Buckle Sanders; Respondent: Steven Kingston
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Case Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal against finding of breach dismissed; appeal against sanction allowed in part
Legal Topics
Code of Conduct for Local Authorities, Freedom of Expression (article 10 Echr), Sanctions for Councillors, Procedural Fairness, Interpretation of Subordinate Legislation
Administrative Law Local Government Law Human Rights Law Code of Conduct for Local Authorities Freedom of Expression (article 10 Echr) Sanctions for Councillors Procedural Fairness Interpretation of Subordinate Legislation

Source-derived case record

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neville Buckle Sanders

Appellant

Steven Kingston

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Case Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's conduct breached paragraphs 2(b) and 4 of the Council's Code of Conduct
  2. 2 Whether the Code of Conduct is sufficiently certain to be 'prescribed by law' under Article 10(2) ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings and sanction imposed breached the appellant's rights under Article 10 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's conduct breached paragraphs 2(b) and 4 of the Code of Conduct as it was disrespectful and brought his office into disrepute. The Code was sufficiently precise to be 'prescribed by law'. While Article 10 ECHR was engaged and the tribunal erred in not considering it, the interference was justified as the appellant's statements did not amount to protected political expression but were personal abuse. However, the sanction of disqualification was disproportionate, especially as the appellant had been re-elected after the events, and a partial suspension was the appropriate sanction.

Court Disposition

Appeal against finding of breach dismissed; appeal against sanction allowed in part

Orders

  • Partial suspension of the appellant from holding the office of leader of the Council for one year from 7 September 2004 substituted for the Case Tribunal's order of disqualification for two years.