Reputation management

Local government has always come under heavy scrutiny from the press and from members of the public, in terms of the conduct of elected representatives and the decisions they make, but in the digital age, inappropriate conduct, acts and omissions are ever more visible to the public.

The use of digital and social media has grown exponentially in recent years. This has positive benefits to be embraced, such as the opportunity to engage with communities by providing online information and services. However, with these benefits comes greater accountability and risk of reputation damage if local authority executives and members conduct or decision making is inappropriate, biased, unfair or perceived to be unfair. To maintain public trust in the system, members and employees have a duty to maintain high standards of conduct and ethics and to consider the consequences of their personal conduct on the reputation of the local authority as an entity.

The Localism Act 2011 abolished the Standards Board regime and the national code of conduct that went with it and replaced it with a requirement that authorities promote and maintain high standards of conduct by members.

Part

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Local Government News

Judicial Review—High Court quashes decision refusing recusal application (R (Ladybill) v Sheffield Magistrates’ Court & Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council)

Public Law analysis: The High Court has ruled that the fair-minded and informed observer would be entitled to conclude that there was a real possibility that the decision of a district judge (‘the judge’) in the Magistrates’ Court was likely to be influenced by the desire to decide the Ladybill case in a way which validated, after the event, his earlier decision in a case called Emeraldshaw. The challenge was brought by way of judicial review in respect of the judge’s decision dated 23 May 2024, refusing to recuse himself from hearing proceedings between Ladybill and Rotherham Borough Council (‘the interested party’). Prior to that the judge had handed down a decision dated 21 March 2024 in the case of Sheffield City Council v Emeraldshaw Ltd, which was a claim by the council for payment of non-domestic rates alleged to be owing in respect of periods between June 2021 and November 2022. The judge found that Emeraldshaw was liable to pay the rates and Emeraldshaw sought to challenge the decision by way of judicial review. Emeraldshaw and Ladybill are companies within the MCR Property Group. Developments in the Emeraldshaw case later catalysed an application made on behalf of Ladybill that the judge should recuse himself from hearing the Ladybill case. The High Court found that there was a real possibility that the judge was biased. Written by Rowena Wisniewska Sethi, barrister at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square Chambers.

View Local Government by content type :

Popular documents