Sheffield to apologise to courts for misleading documents referenced in judicial review decisions regarding street trees dispute

A four-page apology over the bitter 'street trees' dispute has seen Sheffield City Council admit that it should have removed a misleading document from circulation and made the High Court aware that it was inaccurate during the course of two judicial reviews which referenced the document.

In the open apology letter published on Tuesday (20 June), the council's leader, Cllr Tom Hunt, said the local authority would make a written apology to the courts in relation to the misleading documents.

He also stated that the council "stretched, though did not break, the proportionate use of its authority beyond reasonable limits" in relation to the legal action it pursued against protestors by way of injunctions, committal proceedings and legal agreements.

The street trees dispute saw the council defend two judicial review challenges and seek a series of injunctions against members of the public and even one of its own councillors.

It revolved around a tree management strategy the council had adopted that sought to fell and replace 17,500 trees across the city.

Sheffield entered into a contract with infrastructure company Amey to carry out the plan, which required Amey to produce a 'Five Year Tree Management Strategy' and submit it to the council annually.

The strategy documents produced by Amey were never released to the public. However, by the autumn of 2015, public pressure was building on the council over its plan and as a result, the council created and published its own edited version of the Five Year Tree Management Strategy.

This document was then submitted by claimants in judicial review challenges that were brought against the council.

A judgment from Mr Justice Gilbert and a later judgment from Mr Justice Males both quoted extensively from the document. But the council never corrected either judge about the fact that they had been amended.

An inquiry into the dispute conducted by Sir Mark Lowcock concluded that the council added "significant new information" in its version and concluded that the events led the courts to be misled on two occasions. The inquiry did not find evidence that the court was knowingly misled.

Responding to these findings, Cllr Hunt's letter this week said: "While the Inquiry found that the outcomes of legal action would have been the same without the council's version of the 5-year tree management strategy, this document was misleading and mishandled.

"The Council should have removed it from circulation and made the Courts aware that it was not part of Amey's operational approach.

"Misleading the Courts is a serious matter and we will write to them to apologise."

The inquiry said the local authority's legal leadership focused on what the council was entitled to do and "failed to pose questions of what would work or what it was right or proportionate to do", in relation to its pursuit of legal action against protestors.

Writing in his letter, Cllr Hunt said: "The Inquiry found that while the council was entitled to take the legal action it did, it did not consider the wisdom or effectiveness of this action. It stretched, though did not break, the proportionate use of its authority beyond reasonable limits. This unwise action particularly affected people who were asked to sign legal agreements with the Council or the Court, named in the injunctions or had committal proceedings brought against them.

"The Council's actions had particularly serious implications for those found in breach of the injunctions, and we will work with them to maximise what can be done to address any ongoing impact of the committal proceedings."

He also made specific apologies to former councillor Alison Teal, who the council targeted after she attended a protest.

Hunt said: "The Inquiry observed that seeking punishment through the Courts of an elected opposition politician, who was clear that she intended to comply with the law, sits badly with democratic tradition.

"We are sorry that these failures arose and that we did not take a different course of action earlier. Had we done so, we would likely have avoided the deep rifts with some of our residents and avoided some of the worst on-street clashes and the harms which those caused to people and workers present, communities and the city."

Hunt's apology letter also expressed regret for the tree felling programme itself and a culture at the council that was "unreceptive to external views, discouraging of internal dissent and prone to group-think".

He also apologised for a "sustained failure of strategic leadership" at the council which saw decisions made "reactively and based on what the Council was entitled to do rather than what was wise to do".

He noted that the council consistently chose to escalate its actions, "which understandably motivated those who disagreed with the tree replacement Programme".

He said the council should have heeded signs that the tree replacement programme was not progressing well as early as 2012.

Cllr Hunt added that the first arrests that were made of protestors "should have acted as a wake-up call to the Council and should have told us that we were not listening, working in siloes and in secrecy and had placed the police in an invidious position".

Furthermore, the council had the negotiating power to vary the contract with Amey in order to resolve the dispute, but instead chose to escalate, "including taking an unwisely punitive approach to contract managing Amey," Cllr Hunt said.

Cllr Hunt said that the dispute is now mostly resolved, noting that: "Five years on, the council is already a very different place. Through working openly and inviting scrutiny we are developing an understanding of where we need to improve. Actions including the development of our values have changed the way we work, placing people at the heart of what we do.

"We understand that apologies without actions are meaningless. We have set-out actions in a formal report to Strategy and Resources Committee which will address all the inquiry's recommendations. While we know that the decisions Sheffield City Council take will continue to require challenging trade-offs, this should ensure that lessons are learnt and that a dispute of this magnitude with our residents can never happen again."

Adam Carey