The Gazette 1976

SEPTEMBER 1976

GAZETTE

meetings of the Council unless by the express or implied permission of the Council itself". Buckley LJ. concurring says: "It seems to me that this meeting of the Council of the borough was not a public meeting such that any member of the public had a right to go there . . . No person had simply as a member of the public the right to say 'open that door I will come in'." The public has no right to attend the meeting, but it may in the discretion of the local authority. The recent case of Regina v. Liverpool City Council, Ex Parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators Association (1975) I All E.R. 379 dealt with the public's "right" to attend a meeting of a local authority. There 40 mem- bers of the public wished to attend a meeting of a Committee of a Local Authority. There were only 14 seats available for the Press, the public and those mak- ing representations to the Committee. The Chairman suggested to the Committee that it was not practic- able with the limited seating available to open the meeting to the public and that it was desirable that those making representations should be heard in the absence of those making conflicting representations. The Committee passed a resolution, giving effect to the Chairman's suggestion, which complied with the requirements of S.l(l) of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act, 1960. An application by the Association for, inter alia, an Order of Certiorari to quash the Council's resolution on the ground that the Committee's resolution excluding the public was contrary to the provisions of the Statute failed. The supposed entitlement of the public to attend at a local authority meeting was the subject of a decision by District Justice Delap at Dun Laoghaire District Court in January, 1973 (reported in the Vol. 67, No. 7, p. 163 — July/August, 1973). The case — Att.-Gen. v. Eugene Keogh and Aidan Griffin was one in which the Defendants were charged with: — (a) Forcible Entry, and (b) Forcible occupation of the Town Hall, Dun Laoghaire, on 4th September, 1972. Both Defendants were members of a group calling itself The Dun Laoghaire Housing Action Group' and they entered the Town Hall when a meeting of the Corporation was in progress and they interrupted the deliberations of the Councillors, distributed leaflets in the Council Chamber and refused to leave when requested to do so by the Chairman and later by a Garda Sergeant, the Gardai having been called to the meeting. The contention of one of the Defendants on the hearing was that he felt that as a citizen of Dun Laoghaire he was entitled to attend any meeting of the Corporation. He also contended that the system of obtaining admission by way of invitation from a Coun- cillor (which was provided for in the Standing Orders of the Corporation) was not democratic or in order. The case is of importance because a statutory defence to the offence of forcible entry of land or a vehicle is provided in the Forcible Entry and Occupation Act 1971 which provides that a person who enters in pursuance of a bona fide claim of right does not commit an offence. Justice Delap in the course of judgment referred to the White Paper on Local Government Re-Organisa- tion and S.15 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1902, the provisions of the Procedure 147

A MEETING OF A LOCAL AUTHORITY PART II by T. C. Smyth, B.L., former Assistant Secretary (Part I was published in the August Gazette) THE PUBLIC: What then of the conduct of the public at a meeting of a local authority. Two points may be immediately noted:— (i) The Local Authority have the right to admit members of the public to meetings — that is to admit them as an audience or to make representations, and (ii) That, except where there is permission under Statute or Bye-Laws, to the contrary, such right of the authority is discretionary. Though the case law may seem ancient on the topic, the principles enunciated are still relevant. (1) Purcell v. Sowler & Ors. (1877) 2 C.P.D. 215. This was a libel action arising out of words spoken at a meeting of a Board of Poor Law Guardians, Cock- burn C.J. stated:— "It is quite clear that the meetings of Poor Law Guardians are not necessarily public. They have full right to close their doors and although the public are generally admitted yet when changes are to be made affecting private character the proper course would be to close the doors and hold the discussion in Camera. This is one of the cases in whihc the Board of Guardians are not called upon to make their proceedings public. They are clearly not bound to do so and they ought to use proper discretion as to closing their doors". Again Mellish LJ. says: "A Board of Guardians have a discretion whether or not they will admit the public to their meetings and whether they choose to admit, the public have no right to complain". (2) Tenby Corporation v. Mason (1908) 1 Ch. 457. In this case the Defendant claimed a right to attend meetings of the Borough Council of Tenby in any one of these capacities:— (a) as a Burgess of the Borough, (b) as a representative of the Press, and (c) as a member of the public. As the first claim was not pursued, and the second has since been covered by legislation — S.15 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1902 — the third depended upon the English Municipal Corporations Act, 1882. It was held in the first instance that as there was no expression of any public right in the Act, he could not reasonably infer any such right from a provision that the notice of the time and place of intended meetings being fixed on the town hall or that notice of any meeting called by members of the Council should state the business proposed to be transacted. On appeal Cozens Hardy, M.R., concurred at page 467: "I am clearly of opinion that there is no such right as that claimed and that no member of the public be he burgess or not has a right to attend