As reported last week, Lib-Dem Cllr Twigger has agreed to pay damages to the two green councillors who he alleged, via a leaflet distribution, had forced homeless people to sleep in the snow. The resulting court order also shows that a full apology is expected by 15th April 2011 in the next Liberal Democrat edition of “Focus” or newsletter (whichever happens earlier).

The original incident happened two years ago and the successful journey to resolution is detailed below

Sarah Jennings and John Coyne: Claim against Paul Twigger and the Liberal Democrats

Statement of Case, as presented November 2009

SUMMARY

It is claimed that Cllr Sarah Jennings and Cllr John Coyne have been defamed in a Liberal Democrat publication (shown here: front / back) which was distributed across the ward which they represent and in which they and their families live. Although not named, they are clearly identifiable as the only two Green Party councillors in Liverpool. The intention and likely effect of the publication was to damage their reputation as representatives; it was also reckless about a likely effect of damaging their reputation among neighbours and friends including children’s friends.

A letter of claim has been sent to both Cllr Paul Twigger and to the Liberal Democrats in March 2009. The latter replied denying responsibility; the former replied offering no adequate remedy.

The pursuit of the claim has been delayed because of limitations in resources of money and time. There have been competing demands for resources, notably the European election in June 2009. The trigger for the resumption of the case is the continuing practice of the Liberal Democrats to distribute untruths about the two Green Party councillors (e.g. Green Festival Site) and the lack of an alternative remedy.

The section ‘ANALYSIS’ below shows that, at the very least, Paul Twigger and the Liberal Democrats have been reckless about determining the truth of their allegations against the Green Party councillors

BACKGROUND

Sarah Jennings (SJ) and John Coyne (JC) are elected members of Liverpool City Council. They both represent the St Michaels Ward which also has a Liberal Democrat councillor, Peter Allen. SJ and JC are the only Green Party councillors in Liverpool, having been elected as such in 2007 (JC) and 2008 (SJ).

St Michaels and Lark Lane Community Association (SMLLCA) is a voluntary organisation which owns and manages a building used as a community centre in Lark Lane within St Michaels Ward.

The executive committee of SMLLCA had offered the use of that building to the City Council’s homeless service so that it could be used overnight to provide a city-wide shelter for rough sleepers at times of extreme cold weather. SJ and JC were consulted in advance by the Homeless Service and raised no objections.

Use of the building overnight required a planning application for a change of use. SJ and JC were content that the notification of that application would provide a suitable opportunity for consultation with local residents on the principle of using the centre for cold weather shelter.

There was a strong reaction from local residents and some real and perceived weaknesses in the planning notification increased feelings of mistrust of the City Council. SJ and JC attended public meetings and came under pressure to oppose the use of the centre.

Instead of opposing the application, SJ and JC sought to ensure that residents had and were seen to have a full opportunity to express their concerns and objections. SJ and JC requested and obtained an extension of the period for consultation.

In September and at the beginning of October 2008 SJ and JC were concerned that the SMLLCA building appeared to be the City Council’s only option for providing cold weather shelter and that the provision of that building was subject to two significant threats:

• planning permission might be refused; and
• residents’ pressure on the SMLLCA might cause them to terminate the use of the building at short notice.

SJ responded to those threats by seeking an alternative venue – a church hall also within St Michaels Ward.

JC responded by putting down a formal question to the Leader at the council meeting of 15th October. Crucially, the written answer contains the reassurances that:

• “..several further options have been offered..two of which are council buildings.”; and
• “..the homeless service (will) have a contingency plan should further building capacity be necessary.”

Given the reassurance that rough sleepers were not at risk even if the SMLLCA building was not to be available, it would have been open to SJ and JC to take a populist position opposing the use of the centre. However they maintained a neutral stance on the principle. The email to planning (29th October 2008) is their only contribution to the consultation.

SJ and JC were informed subsequently that the planning application had been withdrawn and that the Homeless Service had found more suitable accomodation outside the ward. That should have been an end to the matter.

In January 2009 Cllr Lynnie Williams, a Liberal Democrat from another ward, put a formal question to Council. The answer was prepared by a senior officer in the Homeless Service.

However the final paragraph of the prepared answer was changed within the Leader’s office so that it claimed that local councillors had opposed the use of the SMLLCA centre. Note that the Contact Officer’s details have also been removed which may indicate a dissociation by the officers with the amended version.

Subsequently the Leader denied knowledge of the changed paragraph. SJ and JC were unaware that the answer had been changed and extensive correspondence with the Homeless Service and ultimately the Chief Executive was required to obtain discovery of the original document.

Crucially, the answer contains the information that the overnight accomodation was indeed functioning and had provided cold weather shelter for rough sleepers during the two qualifying episodes. Nobody had been “forced to sleep in the snow“!

The act of defamation was the distribution in February 2009 of a “Focus” leaflet – The Leaflet – containing the imprint “Printed and Published by P Twigger, promoting the Lib Dems, all at 509 Smithdown Road, L15 5AE”. That address is the office of the Liberal Democrats in Liverpool and houses their printing equipment. The Leaflet contained the article headlined “Green Councillors Make Homeless Sleep in the Snow“.

SJ and JC took advice from specialist libel solicitors and letters of claim were sent to Paul Twigger and to the Liberal Democrats.

Paul Twigger (PT) is a Liberal Democrat councillor for Knotty Ash ward. Formerly he was the Chief Whip for the Liberal Democrat Group, currently he is an Executive Member within the ruling Executive Board of the City Council. Warren Bradley (WB) is the Lib Dem Leader of the City Council. Mrs Sandra Warren (SW) is the chair of Lark Lane Neighbourhood Association. She chaired public meetings at which the use of the SMLLCA building was discussed. Following the distribution of The Leaflet she engaged in correspondence with WB complaining of its untruthfulness. SW’s email of 20th March to WB records her observation that SJ and JC had never opposed the use of the SMLLCA centre by rough sleepers. Cllr Peter Allen(PA), mentioned in SW’s letter is the Liberal Democrat councillor for St Michaels Ward. He attended no meetings and made no representations on the planning application.

WB’s reply to SW, on the 24th March is confused, but crucially contains the claim that "..the homeless in our city during a very cold winter had accomodation to stay safe and warm in“.

ANALYSIS

The Leaflet contains statements which are untrue and detrimental. As publisher of The Leaflet, PT may seek to defend it by claiming an honest belief in those statements. However, no person in PT’s position with his access to relevant knowledge and taking reasonable care in checking facts could have come to the conclusion that those statements were true.

It is reasonable to expect Paul Twigger to have knowledge of the written questions to the Leader and for him to have been able to speak to the Leader, Warren Bradley. He would also have been able to make enquiries to the officers in the Homeless Service. Had he done so he would have been told that the provision for rough sleepers is a city wide facility. The potential use of the SMLLCA centre was never advertised to the homeless and they would not have relied on it. The outreach service identifies individual people at risk and invites them to the accomodation rather than leaving them to work out where they should go when it freezes.

He should therefore have known that no homeless people were forced to sleep in the snow.

As a councillor himself, Paul would have known that individual councillors do not have the executive authority to “refuse to allow a local community building to be used”. That is impossible as well as being untrue.

Even if JC and SJ had been minded to raise a planning objection, the matter would have been determined by the planning committee. A ward councillor’s objections do not bind the committee. If representations by councillors had been crucial, how would PT explain why colleagues did not urge the Lib Dem councillor PA to lodge a letter of support?

And no reasonable interpretation of the email (from 29th October), could construe that as a planning objection. No grounds for an objection are offered. The requests seek to allow the residents a hearing in committee and they seek to impose conditions on the use of the centre which would have allayed some of the residents’ concerns and, if applied, would have allowed the centre to function effectively for at least one winter.

SJ and JC had already had the reassurances given in in response to the formal question given at the council meeting on 29th October. They knew that accomodation could be provided elsewhere. Therefore, even if the email could have been construed as opposition to using the SMLLCA centre it would have been untruthful to write about “..the Green’s (sic) unwillingness to help some of our city’s most vulnerable people.”

OUTCOME

The court order was issued on 10th March 2011, instructing payment of damages to SJ and JC to cover their legal costs of £6k plus a personal payment to each of £200. A full apology is to be publicised in the next Liberal Democrat newsletter by 15th April 2011. The Green Party will be donating all remaining money (£400) that does not cover the cost of the legal action to charity.