The Gazette 1976

GAZETTE

AUGUST 1976

AMENDMENT: While the formulation of Standing Orders is a matter that by and large gives rise to no great difficulty, their amendment may and often does. The tendency to change the rules of the game when losing the game is not peculiar to members of local authorities, but a solicitor being consulted in such a case (and it is usually one of urgency and controversy) must be careful to observe the basic tenets of Natural Justice and fair play, and to ensure that whatever rules are laid down in the Standing Orders themselves for amendment are strictly followed. IMPLEMENTATION: The implementation of Stand- ing Orders is one that only gives rise to difficulty in moments of crisis and heated argument, when rage rather than reason prevails. It is in such circumstances that the value of simple direct orders is appreciated— the touchstone is simplicity; for we have moved into an age when in Ireland, at least in politics, words mean what we choose them to mean. We have adopted the Fables of Aesop and abandoned the Concise English Dictionary. Conduct OFFICERS: In treating the conduct of a meeting and regarding the position of the officers of the local authority, there can be little to say to the experienced official who knows what his functions are and how and when to carry them into effect. The impartiality of the official at the meeting, especially when he sees what he considers to be poltroons making hay of his cherished plans, is of importance. The official's entitle- ments at the meeting are very limited, usually to record, report, explain and rarely to recommend. He has not the same latitude as the members. Had Lowe (in the case of Horrocks v. Lowe of which I treat later) been an official, it is very doubtful if he would have been accorded the privilege extended to him in that case. MEMBERS: To say that members should conduct themselves at meetings is to state the obvious, but that is not always understood. Marshall and Others v Tinelly 81 S.J. 902 (1937) was an Appeal by way of Case Stated from a decision of a Justice who con- victed the appellants of assault. On the 1st April (a well chosen date for the prank), 1937, the three appellants and the respondent Tinelly were present at a Meeting of the Fire Brigade and Sanitary Com- mittee of Feltham Urban District Council in the Council Chamber of the Council, the appellant Mar- shall being in the chair. The meeting was conducted in accordance with regulations regarding the conduct of business and Standing Orders of the Urban District Council. Paragraph 47 reads:— "The Chairman may call the attention of the Council to continued irrelevance, tedious repeti- tion, unbecoming language or conduct, or to any breach of order on the part of any member and may direct such members, if speaking, to dis- continue his speech, or, in the event of persistent disregard of the authority of the chair, the meet- ing may, on Motion made by the Chairman and put without debate, order the member to be suspended for the remainder of the sitting. Any member so suspended shall forthwith quit the Council Chamber and in the event of his neglect or refusal to do so, the Chairman may order him to be removed therefrom."

persons who are likely to read it by virtue of the method of publication selected. That privilege may apply if the following conditions are fulfilled:— (A) The subject matter must be one that involves at least the social or moral obligations of the Members of the Local Authority to the county, city or town. It must fall within the purposes, duties and obligations of the particular local authority. (B) The contents of the motion must be such as to be reasonably confined to the privileged matter. As Lord Loreburn put it "Anything that is not relevant and pertinent to the discharge of the duty or the exercise of the right or the safe- guarding of the interest which creates the privilege will not be protected". (C) Publication ought not to go beyond what is reasonably necessary for the purposes of fulfilling the duty in question. Thus if there is to be pub- lication it must be in relation to a matter in respect of which the public or a large or sub- stantial proportion of it has a right to be informed. There are cases where the public or a substantial part of the public is entitled to know facts which though injurious to the character and reputation of an individual are nonetheless justified. One such case was Allbut v. The Medical Council 23 Q.B.D. 400 (1889), where a doctor who had been struck off the register took an action against the Medical Council and the Judges in the Court of Appeal took the view that the communication was protected by privilege. Indeed S.17 of the Solicitors' Act, 1960, imposes a statutory duty on the Incorporated Law Society to publish certain notices on certain orders being made by the High Court, nothwithstanding which such must of necessity injure the character and reputation of the individual solicitor. FORMULATION: Section 62 of the Local Govern- ment Act, 1955, empowers a Local Authority to make Standing Orders for the regulation of their proceedings. This provision is in effect in substitution of the powers previously conferred under Section 96 of the Commissioners Clauses Act, 1847, which was repealed by Section 5 of the 1955 Act. Some preliminary points may be made regarding Standing Orders:— (a) They must not be ultra vires the Statutes; (b) They cannot confer any immunity outside the scope of the General Law; (c) They cannot enlarge the scope of the business to be considered; (d) They cannot impose an obligation on the Manager as to accepting or giving or publishing Notices outside the Statutes, and (e) They cannot protect members or officials in rela- tion to matters that are offences or actionable in ordinary process of law. DURING THE MEETING Standing Orders

132