The council admits it used public resources to hire the Queen’s solicitors to make threats of libel action on behalf of Tony Newman and Jo Negrini.
STEVEN DOWNES, Editor of Inside Croydon, writes that in doing so, the council’s senior legal staff may have broken the law
Official accounts show that last year Croydon Council paid £25,434 to Harbottle and Lewis, a firm of solicitors who more usually act on behalf of the Queen.
While the records made public by the council fail to specify what Harbottle and Lewis’s services involved, the timing of these payments coincides exactly with the period when the solicitors had been writing multiple letters to Inside Croydon to threaten libel action on behalf of Tony Newman and Jo Negrini, who were at the time the leader of the council and its chief executive.
Inside Croydon robustly rejected the threats made by Harbottle and Lewis’s high-powered legal team. All the articles mentioned in their complaints on behalf of Newman and Negrini remain published, unaltered, on this website.
Indeed, particularly in the case of our reporting of Newman’s failure to go to the police over a violent sexual assault against a young woman by one of his councillor colleagues, this website had a public interest defence prepared and was ready to give evidence in the High Court.
Now, nearly two years later and after repeated excuses, refusals and delays, Croydon Council has recently managed to respond to a Freedom of Information request and a direction from the Information Commissioner which ordered them to release the internal correspondence involving Newman and Negrini and Harbottle and Lewis.
Claiming to have acted on advice from the swanky Savoy Court solicitors, the council has still refused to release some of the emails and other documents from the widely discredited ex-councillor and his former CEO.
But documents which the council has released under the FoI clearly show that the threatened libel action against this website, and the engagement of Harbottle and Lewis, was carried out under the direction of Jacqueline Harris-Baker, then the council’s most senior in-house lawyer, and Sean Murphy, effectively her deputy.
As the council’s monitoring officer, Harris-Baker was responsible for ensuring that the highest ethical standards should be maintained by council staff and councillors, that the Nolan Principles of conduct in public office should be upheld, and that the law should be followed.
However, in using the council’s legal department’s time and resources, and by hiring Harbottle and Lewis for a possible libel action, it seems very likely that Harris-Baker and her assistant, Murphy, together with Newman and Negrini, were all acting in contravention of The Local Authorities (Indemnities for Members and Officers) Order 2004, article 6 (3).
This legal order is supposed to prevent council staff (“officers”) and elected councillors (“members”) from using the tax-payer funded resources of their local authority to fund libel cases.
Since 1993, it has been the law that local authorities are not allowed to sue for defamation. As experienced public sector lawyers, Harris-Baker and Murphy really ought to have been aware of this. As the council’s highest-paid official, on £220,000 per year, it is something that Negrini, too, should have known. As a councillor since 1994, even Newman could not claim ignorance as an excuse.
Until very recently, it had been impossible to file a formal complaint to Croydon Council about this apparent breach of the law and possible misuse of thousands of pounds of public money because any such report would have been directed to the desk of the monitoring officer… Jacqueline Harris-Baker. Or to her deputy… Sean Murphy.
Even when Inside Croydon obtained the support of the Information Commissioner to try to uncover who was behind the questionable legal spending by the council, Katherine Kerswell, by now installed as the council’s new CEO, referred the matter for review to… Sean Murphy. This was not the “corporate blindness” of which the council has been justifiably accused. This was the executive wagons being well and truly circled.
Now, none of the quartet at the centre of this piece of costly legalistic hubris is any longer working at Fisher’s Folly.
“Negreedy” was the first to scarper, in August 2020, with the council’s finances collapsing around her ears. She didn’t make her exit before ensuring she had stuffed a £440,000 “golden farewell” into the pockets of her neatly tailored trouser suit, though.
Newman quit as council leader last October, then was suspended by the Labour Party for his part in the council’s financial collapse. He finally resigned as a councillor earlier this year, although it is suggested that he retains some influence in the Croydon Labour Party.
Harris-Baker, after a lengthy spell of sick leave, recently resigned from her council job. Although she was never actually suspended, Harris-Baker was among five senior executives who faced the possibility of disciplinary action over their parts in the council’s financial collapse.
Before he left Croydon in April, Murphy had been the council’s head of commercial and property law, and therefore played a prominent part in the council’s purchase of properties, such as the Croydon Park Hotel, overseeing the operation of Brick by Brick, the Westfield CPO and also any legal issues arising from the council’s planning policies. Murphy is now working for the Department of Health and Social Care as interim head of commercial law for the NHS Test and Trace programme.
While it cannot be certain that the whole of the £25,000 in bills from Harbottle and Lewis were solely relating to legal threats against Inside Croydon, it seems very likely that most, if not all, of the payments were for this action. Even a senior member of the council’s current legal team has suggested as much.
The first Harbottle and Lewis letters on behalf of Newman arrived in December 2019.
They referred to two articles, Council leader delayed reporting violent incident to police, which we published on November 27 2019, and Fears that Newman cover-up could impact Jones’s election, published on November 30, just days before the 2019 General Election.
Then, on February 21, 2020, we received another threat from the suits, this time on behalf of Negrini.
Negrini had the right ’ump with us because of an article published that January entitled Negrini’s legacy on housing is also costing Newham millions.
Our report dealt with the plight of Red Door Ventures, an arm’s length house-builder in the borough of Newham where the Labour-run local authority was struggling to deliver homes for local residents and profits to the council.
If this all sounds familiar, then you should not be surprised. Negrini had worked at Newham before bringing her talents, such as they are, and Brick by Brick to Croydon.
As with the previous legal threats, we rejected Harbottle and Lewis’s claims entirely.
But this time, the Queen’s lawyers did respond to one of our questions by stating, “We write in our client’s capacity as chief executive of the council.”
Clearly, Harbottle and Lewis thought that they were being paid by and acting on behalf of council official, Negrini, rather than private individual Negrini.
Which appears to mean that Negrini was acting in contravention of that Local Authorities (Indemnities for Members and Officers) Order from 2004 which states, “No indemnity may be provided under this Order in relation to the making by the member or officer indemnified of any claim in relation to an alleged defamation of that member or officer…”.
Some might regard such actions by someone in public office as being an abuse of their position.
More recently, in their latest correspondence over the FoI request, the council has claimed responsibility as the clients of Harbottle and Lewis. “It is Croydon Council who instructed the firm of solicitors and the firm represented Jo Negrini in her capacity as chief executive,” wrote Nicola Thoday, the council’s senior corporate solicitor, in a letter to Inside Croydon last month.
In seeking full disclosure of the correspondence, we had made a public interest argument, which includes considerations such as any apparent lack of transparency in the public authority’s actions or whether there was a large amount of money involved.
On this latter point, Thoday’s response states, “The amounts paid to Harbottle and Lewis Solicitors are already available in the public domain, thus meeting the public interest regarding the spending of monies.”
Now Croydon Council spends millions of pounds on external legal advice every year, but the monthly accounts of spending amounts of £500 or more show no payments to Harbottle and Lewis at all for the first three months of 2020.
Then, in April that year, there are four invoices from Harbottle and Lewis that receive payment. In May, there’s a further payment from the council to the solicitors. After that, Harbottle and Lewis make no further appearances in the council’s records of its spending for the rest of 2020. So unless the council was trying to sue someone else in late 2019 and early 2020, it seems reasonable to assume that all these payments to Harbottle and Lewis relate to their work on Inside Croydon.
- On April 6 2020, Croydon paid Harbottle and Lewis £13,197.50 for an invoice dated March 30.
- On April 9, they paid them £5,137.50.
- On April 15, the payment was £4,356.00.
- On April 27, Harbottle and Lewis received £1,902.50.
- And on May 15, they got a further £840.50.
All of these payments are listed as for “legal services” under an account description of “third party solicitors fees”. All are assigned to “Chief Executive’s Office” as their cost centre.
In her letter, Thoday denies that the council’s attempts to avoid responding to the FoI request were in any way deliberate, as the final response was delayed until after the four figures at the centre of interest had, conveniently, all left Croydon Council.
“The processing of your review was not deliberately delayed whilst key individuals left the council, to avoid the necessity for disciplinary action to be considered against them,” Thoday said. “Some individuals had already left before this review commenced.” She blamed covid and the council’s financial collapse for the slow response. Conveniently.
At the heart of this matter has always been a question we put to Harbottle and Lewis when we replied to their first legal threat on behalf of Tony Newman: “How is your client funding his legal representation?”
After nearly two years, at last we have an answer to our question about who was paying: it was the Council Tax-payers of Croydon all along.
Read more: Council forced to pay (Sandwell) blogger’s £50,000 legal costs
Read more: Commissioner orders council to answer FoI over libel threats
- Inside Croydon – independent journalism from the heart of Croydon. We depend on regular subscriptions from our readers to enable us to continue to deliver exclusive, headline-making journalism – the sort of scrutiny that Croydon Council would prefer did not exist. Please sign up today as a subscriber. Click here
- If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, or want to publicise your residents’ association or business, or if you have a local event to promote, please email us with full details at firstname.lastname@example.org
- Inside Croydon is a member of the Independent Community News Network
- Inside Croydon works together with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, as well as BBC London News and ITV London
- ROTTEN BOROUGH AWARDS: Croydon was named the country’s rottenest borough in 2020 in the annual round-up of civic cock-ups in Private Eye magazine – the fourth successive year that Inside Croydon has been the source for such award-winning nominations
- Inside Croydon: 3million page views in 2020. Seen by 1.4million unique visitors
Are ANY local government fraudsters in prison (currently or have ever been), or are they (all) above the law? What do passengers on the public sector gravy train have to do to be sent to prison ?!
Lets review so far
A) Ensure that there is lawful planning permission to cover all harm to adjoining residents?
B) Ensure that there are legal cover thy ass excuses for all spending activities?
C) Contract out building task to other ”independent from Council” building companies for deniability but not Financial Liability?
D) Contract out all tasks deaing with residents( like Regina Court )to other private companies again for deniability?
E) Fail to enforce effectively or performance manage anything.?
F) Butter up Strong leader instead of acting as a control on their actions?
G) Ignore Risk advice?
H) Use an inordinate amount of Metropolitan Police services on residents in New Addington complaining about unreasonable actions by Brick by Brick?
I) Place vulnerable children and adults in squalid hotel accommodation that has high risks to health and their safety.
J – Z ) I am sure Inside Croydon and Croydon Residents can hit the Z and not just once
So in answer to your question what does it take under the Local Government Act 2011 for Jenrick or Ms Dick to take action?
1.) All the above?
2.) None of the above?
More great reporting, IC. And congratulations on staying strong in the face of threats from these top-price lawyers who hope that the mere sniff of legal action will make an editor back down.
Thanks, Peter. Think I must have learned something when working at the Sunday Times after all…
Well done IC , nice to see you have the Council on their toes ,keep up the amazing good work looking after the residents of Croydon.
Clear misuse of public funds. There is case law on this … I’m on the case
Isn’t it very worrying how in any council, politicians with access to levers of power and patronage can get elected Mayors or Leaders. At whim picking and choosing their chums for so-called cabinet positions.. Accruing ever more dangerous levels of control.
When I was a councillor (in Haringey) I got sick watching some of these hardly outstanding men and women floating to the top. They can succumb to fawning and flattery. The Leader says this, the Leader wants that. I’ve talked to the Leader and so it must be.
Checks and balances? Dreams from a bygone age.
Looking at this post and the subsequent comments all congratulating Negrini, I’m flabbergasted!
Mr Downes, you have surpassed yourself
Responding to Richard Stubbs,
I have to admire the posts on ‘Linked In’ even though I have never met Ms Negrini. They offer a useful template for a range of similar situations. For example:
After nearly — incredible years at — I am moving on.
I worked with some amazing —, — and — and we — a lot for the borough. I am — of the work we did to promote — as a great place to —, — and have fun, the years we spent getting — to a — rating and the vital work bringing together — and — services to deliver — for residents.
I also learnt that we are all in the — of — and delivering — is a vital part of great —. We should be aiming for a —approach to — where the —, — and — come together in an — to —peoples’ lives.
As we — through this next phase of the — this approach is going to be more — than ever. The importance of — and —, the changing nature of — and the reimagining of — will need to form the cornerstone of new approaches to — and —.
Thanks to everyone who’s been in touch. I’m — about the future — and what it will —.
This is the really sad indictment of life in Croydon Council today as it really is. We all know this but even worse is Regulatory authorities ignoring the failures. At least the Information Commissioners office gets to it. It would be useful if they had more resource a bit more enforcement powers coupled with stronger regulations especially on those in public offices.
Very soon everyone in the UK will lose much of the ability to protest also. As this article shows, the trite excuses used to justify that misuse of funds and effective improper bullying of media shows not only the ethic’s and practices of Council Executives but how the laws are being stacked against Individuals and media ever being able to bring matters to light let alone rectify wrongdoing.
One also has to wonder of the rationale involved in passing this to a person previously involved in the matter. One could reasonably believe Ms Kerswell knew of the history of the matter having been briefed by her General Council. So Nicola Thoday’s response would also be known and agreed.
It shows the level of faith one can have in any Croydon Council Executive investigation into perceived wrongdoing going forward and exactly what the current Executive mean when they utter words like – Transparency – Openness – Etc. perhaps that automatic opposite cultural reflex kicked in first and we will see a formal apology from Ms Thoday and a clarification on behalf of Ms Kerswell?
Perhaps Council Executives and Councillors view the Nolan Principles,conditions regulations and laws like they view their Building code of practice – Voluntary and not requiring any intervention at all?
But hey we have high standards in public office and we need the strong leader type again. Despite two failures of both parties we should be positive and think – third time lucky?
A Croydon Councillor told me about the job interview he sat in on when one of the Croydon executives named above applied for their job. It’d be unfair for me to say which. He summarised that the interview was woeful.
The candidate had been asked to prepare some written responses – these were unintelligible. Their inability to respond to current debate questions concerning their own field was quite shocking.
He left the interview early, assuming the candidate would be rejected, only to discover the reverse a fortnight later. And here they are appearing on Inside Croydon.