BRADLEY and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL - [2012] WASAT 44

BRADLEY and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL [2012] WASAT 44

Last Update: 12/03/2012

BRADLEY and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL [2012] WASAT 44
Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2012] WASAT 44
Published:	07/03/2012
Act:	LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 (WA)
Case No:	DR:429/2009	Heard:	12 MARCH 2010 9 JUNE 2010
Coram:	MR P McNAB (MEMBER)	Delivered:	16/11/2010
No of Pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for review allowed Decision of the respondent set aside and original complaint to Panel dismissed
Category:	B
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	RODNEY BRADLEY LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Catchwords:	Local government Regulation of councillors Local Government Standards Panel Censured councillor Conflict of interest Councillor did not declare he was a witness in criminal proceeding brought by local government against resident Councillor a member of prosecuting local government Whether councillor giving evidence on behalf of resident in criminal proceedings is a declarable interest Extent to which rules of conduct for councillors restrict political free speech Review allowed Censure set aside Words and phrases: 'disclosure of interest' 'political free speech'
Legislation:	Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 (WA), reg 11 Local Government Act 1995 (WA), s 2.10(a), s 5.105(1)
Case References:	Greene v Gold Coast City Council [2008] QSC 25 Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1997] HCA 25; (1997) 189 CLR 520
Orders:	On the application heard before Member Peter McNab on 16 November 2010, it is ordered that: 1. The application for review is allowed. 2. The decision of the Local Government Standards Panel is set aside and in substitution thereof there will be a decision dismissing the complaint.
Summary:	Councillor Rodney Bradley is an elected Councillor in the Town of Cambridge. In 2008, he gave evidence for the defence in a prosecution action brought by the Town of Cambridge against a constituent ratepayer of his, a Mr Charles Saliba, concerning Mr Saliba's alleged liability in respect of the unfinished construction of a house on certain land in the Town, being land owned by Mr Saliba. During Mr Saliba's trial, Councillor Bradley was not crossexamined by the Town's prosecuting solicitor. The Tribunal found that, with respect to this incident, Councillor Bradley had no personal or other interest in the matter, but was motivated solely by what he saw was an injustice against a ratepayer. Councillor Bradley applied to the Tribunal for a review of a proposed public censure imposed upon him by the Local Government Standards Panel. The censure followed a complaint lodged by a fellow Council member of an alleged 'minor breach' by Councillor Bradley of the standards applicable to elected officials. It was alleged that, in a subsequent debate in Council, directly related to Mr Saliba's prosecution, Councillor Bradley had failed to declare a relevant interest, namely, his participation in the trial. However, the Town of Cambridge's Chief Executive Officer was aware of Councillor Bradley's participation and spoke during the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read BRADLEY and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] WASAT 44
Decision Date: 16 NOVEMBER 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bradley and Local Government Standards Panel concerns a dispute regarding the conduct of a councillor in a local government setting. The applicant, a councillor, was subject to a complaint made to the Local Government Standards Panel, which resulted in the applicant being censured. The applicant sought judicial review of the Panel's decision, arguing that the censure was improper as it was based on the applicant's failure to declare a conflict of interest. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's role as a witness in a criminal proceeding brought by the local government against a resident constituted a declarable interest and, if so, whether the rules of conduct for councillors unconstitutionally restricted political free speech. The court was required to determine whether the Panel's decision was legally sound and if the applicant's censure was justified.

The court found that the applicant's role as a witness in the criminal proceeding was a declarable interest. However, the court also held that the rules of conduct for councillors, which required the disclosure of such interests, did not unconstitutionally restrict political free speech. The court concluded that the Panel's decision was flawed because it had not properly considered the rules of conduct and the scope of the disclosure requirements. Consequently, the application for review was allowed, the decision of the respondent was set aside, and the original complaint to the Panel was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for review allowed

Decision of the respondent set aside and original complaint to Panel dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.