The Westminster Scandal: Saga that looks certain to run and run: The Road Ahead
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE District Auditor's report, damning though it appears to be initially, is just the first step in a process that some estimate could take more than two years to complete, writes Ian MacKinnon.
The level of condemnation in the report is exceptional, but there are factors which mark out this case from others where councillors have eventually found themselves on the receiving end of a surcharge.
Ordinarily, the auditor has declared that the councillors have authorised expenditure contrary to the Local Government Finance Act 1982, followed by an application to the High Court where the judge levies the necessary surcharge.
Unlawful expenditure of more than pounds 2,000 automatically led to the councillors involved being banned from local authority office for the next five years.
But John Magill, the District Auditor in the Westminster City Council case, has gone further.
His provisional finding that the conduct of councillors and officials amounted to 'wilful misconduct', puts an entirely different complexion on the process.
The definition of 'wilful misconduct' he selected was that used in a 1981 court case where councillors were 'deliberately doing something which is wrong knowing it to be wrong, or with reckless indifference as to whether it is wrong or not'.
But having chosen that line - and accusing the council, in the most emotive language, of engaging in gerrymandering - Mr Magill emphasised that his findings were provisional, and that those concerned who wished to contradict them at an oral hearing should inform him by 28 February, while written representations should arrive by 29 July.
At any hearing the onus is on those making the allegations to prove them, while those accused must be given the opportunity to refute them, the whole process being analagous to a court hearing.
Mr Magill will give consideration to the representations and make judgements in fact before reaching his final views, and deciding on the consequences of those views, which could ultimately mean levying surcharges.
Even then, those surcharged could still appeal to the High Court against the findings, rehearsing the whole saga once more.
As George Jones, Professor of Government at the London School of Economics, put it yesterday: 'This one is going to run and run.'
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments