Failed by the High Court: A Sad Day for Brent and Our Libraries

Sketch of Court 2 on 19 July this year, Royal Courts of Justice - The people of Brent versus Brent Council. (S Ali)

Today the People of Brent learned the sad news that they had not succeeded in their High Court battle to overturn the Council's plan to axe half of the borough's libraries (background).

I could sense the anxiety amongst my fellow Brentonians before the judgment was delivered. I reassured my neighbours that we did not know the result yet, but it seemed most of them did not dare believe that we would hear good news today, simply to protect against greater disappointment of a frustrated hope.

The truth is that whilst Justice Ouseley's judgment must be respected for what it is, his written judgment strikes me as a piece of legal casuistry in the main. Of course, points of law must be attended to, but in their attention one is always left with a judgment to make, whether on balance of probability or the spirit of the law as drafted. Even the most impartial observer could be left wondering whether arguments had been won, as opposed to counterassertions (in this case the Council's) simply affirmed by the judge.

The Judgment (Case No. CO/4957/2011) summarises the main pieces of law in contention then itemises the grounds which Justice Ouseley takes to have not been demonstrated in law:

1. Unlawfully ignoring the role which community libraries and groups could play in fulfilling the s7 duties (Public libraries Act 1964)
2. Unlawful failure to consult
3. An unlawful failure to assess needs
4. Breach of the public sector equality duty

However, many of the judgments appear, in reason, to be question-begging:

"I cannot see that it is unlawful for the Council to start the process by warning the groups, as in effect it did, that its approach would be that alternatives had to achieve the same level of savings for the same level of service as the Council's own proposals." (para 77)

But no piece of law is going to circumscribe consultation down to this level of detail. The question is whether this was a fair constraint, to effectively debar solutions that did not conform to a pre-decided lowest common denominator budget.

Later still, the Judge writes: "The Council's approach was entirely consistent with the requirement in s7(2) that the provision of library services by other menas be "appropriate"." (para. 80)

That sounds more like an assertion than an argument.

By some textual anomaly, moreover, the following appears in the introduction without any qualification, simply stated as fact, not as an argument from our side:

"The public consultation had been unfair since the Council had not told the public what it needed to know about the running costs of libraries so that groups could make informed responses in support of voluntary arrangements, and had not been told the basis upon which the Council would appraise their alternative proposals." (para. 4)

Yes, I agree that this is true Justice Ouseley.

Overall, I am bound to say, this was a very disappointing and dispiriting judgment. I salute the people of Brent for bringing this case. My fear now is that Brent Council will feel itself emboldened in this course of action, obviously they will feel vindicated, but the reality is that they have lost the confidence of the people they are meant to serve.

Let the People of Brent unite in their common endeavour to safeguard our community from this assault on our local libraries. We can despair, but we shall also regroup - with the same practical intelligence and determination we have already shown, to find a better way forward.

This is a sad day for Brent; but also a day on which the Citizens of Brent who give a damn about lifelong education and protecting the vulnerable from abandonment should hold their heads up high. Just not in the High Court.

People of Brent versus Brent Council: Save our Six Libraries

Sketch of Court 2, Royal Courts of Justice - The people of Brent versus Brent Council. (S Ali)

As significant as the goings on in Westminster on 19 July 2011 (hackgate hearings), at least for the good people of Brent, is the High Court challenge to the Council's plan to axe six local libraries in Brent - and the potential repercussions if the case is won. On the opening day of the legal challenge, the BBC reports.

In the words of the Save our Six campaign, the basis of the challenge is that: "Brent Council has closed its mind to alternatives to closure, did not assess community needs or the impact of closure properly, made significant mistakes about the facts, misunderstood its legal duty to provide a library service and acted unfairly."

After presenting a physical and vocal presence outside the entrance to the Court (some pictured below), the people of Brent packed the lower and upper public gallery of Court 2. The judge first entertained an application he had lately received to have the case adjourned, on behalf of a third party. This struck me as a desperate attempt at sabotage, which could only have helped the Council, and the judge rightly dismissed as "too late".

Counsel for the claimaint (the campaign to save the libraries) then summarised, in the first hour, the main legal arguments that she would go on to put in more detail. The contention was that "Brent had not acted lawfully, or with due regard, to its statutory duties." The main pieces of law referenced were the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 (in particular section 7): "It shall be the duty of every library authority to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof ..". Also referenced were the Equalities Act 2010 and the Childrens Acts of 1989 and 2004.

We were introduced to a compelling case that the Council, in deciding how to fulfil its duty under the 1964 Act, "had fixed on the means of fulfilling that end, without proper, open-minded consideration of the alternative options." These failures were itemised under the headings of failures of Approach - such as closing its mind to third sector collaboration - and failures of Analysis. The latter included the contentions that Brent Council had sought to reach a decision before facilitating the formation of rational and informed views; had failed to rigorously assess the needs of children; and had turned its Equalities Impact Analysis in to a piece of advocacy "rather than a genuine tool to inform the decision-making process."

The final piece of the legal challenge concerned Brent's inadequate consultation .. because "Brent closed its mind"; did not offer consultees financial alternatives; made up criteria without disclosing them to consultees; and offered no questions about what would mitigate the library closures. These charges will ring true to anybody who is familiar with Brent's attitude to consultation generally, and the libraries problem in particular. (Report of original Council decision on 11 April 2011 to decimate libraries.)

I shuffled a written note to a neighbour in the gallery concerned that Council representatives (for the defendant) appeared to her to be visibly making light, or in denial, of some of these grave criticisms. "We will prevail!" I replied.

Another resident, Andria Greaves, said to me of her local library in Tokyngton: "It's one of the very far out libraries which they think they can ignore."

Over the coming hours and days, let Brent Council's mind be focussed to its rank disdain of the people of Brent and its riding roughshod over the educational needs of some of its most vulnerable communities.

The people of Brent will not be ignored!

Brent library campaigners outside the High Court.

High Court declares Heathrow Runway "Untenable"

Today the High Court has ruled that the Government's plans for a third runway at Heathrow fly in the face of its own climate change policy and that the claimed for economic benefits have not taken carbon emissions properly into account. The legal challenge has been brought by Green campaigners led by Greenpeace.

This ruling puts the Government firmly on the back foot. Describing the runway proposal as "untenable", Lord Justice Carnwath ruled that the Climate Change Act 2008 takes precedence over the 2003 Air Transport white paper, upon which the Government made its flawed assessement of the benefits and impacts.

Brent Greens have campaigned against the third runway proposal from the outset on grounds of climate change and the negative impacts on local residents, either through the wholesale destuction of Sipson village or increased noise. This ruling is a welcome step forward.

The image was taken at the Heathrow demonstration in May 2008, of a family in Sipson (with permission).