Rutland defers decision on defamation claim but authorises legal action

Councillors at Rutland County Council last night deferred a decision over whether the authority should make a groundbreaking claim for defamation against three of its members.

However, they gave the go-ahead at a special meeting for the authority to seek an injunction preventing harassment of the chief executive and other officers by the Rutland Anti-Corruption Group and its members. Twenty-three members voted for the legal action, with none against and three abstaining.

The council also resolved to grant an indemnity to, and support the chief executive and/or other officers to take legal action in their own names for harassment by the RACG.

A further measure approved at the meeting will make all communications from the group to any part of the council subject to a single point of contact. The three councillors will also be required to use the council’s secure email system.

The council authorised the release of funds to support these decisions.

The three councillors who comprise the group – Richard Gale, David Richardson and Nick Wainwright – have consistently denied any wrongdoing.

A report prepared by law firm Bevan Brittan had argued that the introduction of the general power of competence in the Localism Act 2011 overturned a principle established by the courts that a local authority could not bring a defamation claim in its own name.

Bevan Brittan said the activities of the RACG had affected the council’s reputation and its ability to recruit outstanding officers.

However, councillors chose to defer a decision on pursuing a defamation claim. They also deferred decisions on proposals to ask the chief executive to make a complaint to the police, and carrying out a wider review into the impact of the group. These options may be considered at a later date.

A central issue to the case was email correspondence from members to the group to the chief executive in particular, and claims made in those emails.

Roger Begy, Rutland’s Leader, said after the special meeting: “We have a chief executive and staff team who are simply doing their jobs to the very best of their ability. Of course they should be subject to scrutiny and challenge as that is the basis of local democracy.

“However, they should not have to put up with false allegations about their conduct and regular questioning of their integrity and honesty. As councillors we have to protect our staff, and this decision sends out a strong message.”

He added: “We totally support open and transparent debate and argument in meetings that are held in public so everyone is aware of issues and all able to answer and account.”