It's a long way from South Tyneside to the Superior Court of California in the San Mateo County, it's a long way to roam...
Has Councillor Ahmed Khan been up to monkey business? If so, give that man a banana!South Tyneside County Council is a public authority and as such exercises public power. There is no lawful authority to exercise public power for a private purpose. It is an established legal principle that South Tyneside County Council cannot be libelled not sue for libel. If a councillor believes that he or she has been libelled then it is a private matter between the councillor and the person who is alleged to have committed the libel, and the cost of bringing the libel proceedings, at least initially, must be met by the councillor in person and not by the council taxpayers.
If I was a South Tyneside council taxpayer I would be applying for a judicial review to challenge the decision to fund this private law action for private purpose out of the public purse.
As you can see below the case has not been filed by South Tyneside County Council, but instead has been filed by 4 private individuals; Iain Malcolm, David Potts, Anne Walsh and Rick O' Farrell.
A spokesman for South Tyneside Council said: "This legal action was initiated by the council's previous chief executive and has continued with the full support of the council's current chief executive.
"The council has a duty of care to protect its employees and as this blog contains damaging claims about council officers, legal action is being taken to identify those responsible."
The legal position is that South Tyneside council does not owe its employees a duty of care not to be libelled. Therefore this reason does not stand up to scrutiny. It would appear that the true reason for using public money for private purpose is to out the anonymous blogger Mr Monkey.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of anonymous bloggers and Twitters publishing defamatory statements, 2 wrongs do not make a right. The people of South Tyneside should be up in arms about the conduct of South Tyneside council and Iain Malcolm, David Potts, Anne Walsh and Rick O' Farrell!
Case CIV482779 - IAIN MALCOLM VS. DOES 1-10
Complaint Number: 1
Complaint Type: COMPLAINT
Filing Date: 04/06/2009
Complaint Status: ACTIVE
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
1 PLAINTIFF IAIN MALCOLM KAYS, DAVID A First Paper Fee Paid
2 PLAINTIFF DAVID POTTS KAYS, DAVID A First Paper Fee Paid
3 PLAINTIFF ANNE WALSH KAYS, DAVID A First Paper Fee Paid
4 PLAINTIFF RICK O'FARRELL KAYS, DAVID A First Paper Fee Paid
5 DEFENDANT DOES 1-10 Unrepresented Serve Required (WaitS)
Corrupt councillor Iain Malcolm
Corrupt councillor David Potts
3 comments:
As far as I am aware South Tyneside District Council is not pursuing a libel action, its legal officers would advise against that. They are simply seeking information from Twitter on behalf of the authority, three councillors, and one of its officers.
The information gained may be used by the individuals to pursue personal actions at a later date, if they can reasonably and positively identify the author of the blog, or the author of alleged libellous "tweets".
Free speech is fine John but with it comes a degree of responsibility, and if the alleged author has not libelled then he/she has nothing to fear, if the allegations made can be substantiated then again they have nothing to fear, if the allegations can not be substantiated then perhaps the alleged author may have to face up to some responsibilities.
If the result of the allegations were to drag down the reputation of the borough without any real foundation, then I do not mind some of my money being used to identify the alleged author. Using my money to fund a libel action in the British courts would be a wholly different and unacceptable route to take.
Curly: It still amounts to an abuse of public power for a private purpose and an abuse of council taxpayers money.
The correct procedure would have been for the individuals concerned to have paid for and brought the action themselves.
They needed to be above reproach because all they have done is draw attention to their abuse of power. The Guardian this morning sums it up nicely:
"One organisation is behaving pretty shamefully, however – South Tyneside council itself. As David Banks, co-author of McNae's Essential Law for Journalists, points out, under UK law councils are not entitled to sue under defamation law: only individual officials or councillors are.
What appears to be happening in this case is that the council is using public money and official time to pursue this information on behalf of the individuals concerned. If this is indeed so, it's shameful stuff at a time of swingeing budget cuts leading to the loss of services, closure of libraries, and more. Does anyone in South Tyneside council really believe this is how their voters wish their money to be spent?".
Please read my contributions to "Curly's" blog on this subject.
Post a Comment