Letter about misconduct in public office to be delivered on 22nd October at 7pm to Town Hall

The campaign team will be delivering a letter to the Town Hall on Tuesday 22nd October at 7pm asking why Cllr Jas Athwal and/or his managing agent has not been investigated for not holding a landlord licence.

Consequently, it appears that the offence of misconduct in public office  may have been committed by senior Redbridge staff. The letter is below which requests a reply by the 25th October.  Join us for the photo shoot at 7pm on 22nd October outside the Town Hall

 

Investigate Jas Athwal Community Group

C/O 120 Blythswood Road 22/10/24

Ilford IG3 8SG

Adrian Loades - Interim Chief Executive Redbridge Council by hand and email

Pervinder Sandhu - Monitoring Officer

Councillor Kam Rai - Leader of Redbridge Council

Dear Adrian Loades, Pervinder Sandhu & Councillor Kam Rai

Why no investigation into Jas Athwal

We are concerned that you may have committed the offence of misconduct in public office. For your ease of convenience we are using guidance which is cut and pasted at the end of this email about the offence written by Stuart Miller Solicitors.

The apparent offence of misconduct in public office is your failure to commission an investigation into Cllr Jas Athwal MP and or his managing agents regarding his reported failure to renew his landlord licences and the sub-standard condition of his houses.

There is also the press report suggesting Jas Athwal does not let his properties to benefit claimants which appears unlawful.

By now we would have expected an announcement that Redbridge would be pursuing the prosecution of Jas Athwal and/or his managing agent for not holding a licence.

We say this because the tests for a successful prosecution were set out in a court case reported by the Wanstead Guardian dated 9th August 2021 titled “Landlord wins court battle with Redbridge Council over fine”

Judge Martin Rodger QC scrapped the initial £2500 fine for the landlord for these reasons:

1 The landlord only had one property for rent.

2 The landlord had been absent from the UK for ten years.

3 An officer inspection found the rental flat in good condition.

None of these three tests apply to Jas Athwal, suggesting a clear duty on Redbridge to pursue a prosecution.

Another recent prosecution of a landord and his agent by Southwark Council reported in “The Negotiator” in an article dated 22^nd October 2024 is a cause of concern too. It is reported that Southwark successfully prosecuted  Rashidat Adebukola Edekunle-Mohammed for not holding a licence and also prosecuted Tunde Coker of Alpha Property Services .

The article also mentions the prospect of rent repayment orders for the benefit of the tenants.

Another court case involving at the link https://www.trinitychambers.co.uk/news-insights/housing-barrister-summary-of-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber-decision-of-daff-v-gyalui-anor-rent-repayment-orders-2023/ involving Tower Hamlets Council. We quote from the article

The facts

Ms Daff owned and let a one-bedroomed flat in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. In 2016, a selective licensing scheme applied to the flat under Part 3 of the 2004 Act. Ms Daff was in Australia at the time and unaware of the licensing scheme and did not apply for a licence. In 2018 she granted a nine-month tenancy to the respondents, she did not have a licence during the period of the tenancy and accordingly acknowledged that she committed an offence under section 95(1) of the Act. Shortly after being given notice of the application for a rent repayment order, Ms Daff applied for a licence but was informed, after explaining that the flat was now her home, that it had been “exempted” from the selective licencing scheme”

Orders) [2023]

Please can you reply to us by 5pm on the 25th October with any defence. Should you not reply, we expect to canvas the community for a referral to the police.

Vaseem Ahmed - Redbridge Community Action Group 

Bob Archer -  Redbridge Trades Union Council 

Noor Begum - Independent 

Ashburn Holder - Liberal Democrats 

Andy Walker - TUSC

The guidance from Slater Brown is cut and pasted below:

What is the offence of misconduct in public office?

The offence of misconduct in public office relates to the abuse of power by those in positions of authority. The legal elements of the offence of misconduct in public office have been defined by the courts over the past three centuries. The case law states that the offence can only be committed by a ‘public officer’, but there is no hard and fast definition of a public officer. Whether or not the defendant is a public officer will be considered on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the role, the duties which are carried out, and the level of public trust. A position of public office is usually a paid position, but there are case examples where the defendant was found to have misused their power in a voluntary position.

Examples of individuals who have been found to be public officers include:

Nurses working in a prison
Employees of local authorities
Coroner
Police officer
Police community support officer
Police officials in charge of police computer systems
Magistrate
Prison officer
Mayor
Army officer
Immigration officer
Local councillor
Church of England Clergy
Member of the Independent Monitoring Board for prisons
CPS guidance suggests that whilst there is no categorical definition of a public officer, it usually includes those who work in judicial or quasi-judicial roles; those in regulatory positions; those in punitive, coercive or investigative positions; those who act as representatives for the public at large, and those with responsibility for public funds.

In order to be found guilty of misconduct in public office, the public officer must be found to have:

Wilfully neglected to perform his or her duty – this can include a positive act or omission to act. The conduct must be deliberate, not accidental. Wilful has been defined as meaning ‘deliberately doing something which is wrong knowing it to be wrong or with reckless indifference as to whether it is wrong or not’.
To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder – this is a high legal test to meet. One court case gave guidance that this should mean behaviour that is worthy of punishment or condemnation, which has the effect of harming the public interest. Although there is not a legal necessity to establish a certain level of harm as a result of the misconduct, the consequences which flow from the conduct will be relevant to the court’s decision in respect of whether the conduct amounted to an abuse of public office.
Without reasonable excuse or justification – this has been held by the courts to mean circumstances where the defendant acts culpably, i.e. where blame can be attached to their conduct.
For example, where a public official has maliciously exercised their official authority, or wilfully exceeded their public authority, they could be found guilty of this offence. Intentional infliction of bodily harm or imprisonment of a person by someone in a position of public authority could also constitute misconduct in public office.

What is the difference between misconduct in public office and misfeasance in public office?
Misconduct in public office is a criminal offence that could result in a prosecution and a sentence being passed against the accused. Meanwhile, misfeasance in public office is a civil action for compensation that can be brought by a claimant who alleges that they have suffered loss as a consequence of the defendant’s misuse of their power.

For example, an immigration detainee could bring a claim against the Home Office where they allege that an immigration officer knowingly abused their authority or where they behaved recklessly or indifferently to any official limits to that power. In some cases it is possible that a defendant could be prosecuted for misconduct in public office, and also face a civil claim for misfeasance in public office.

What defences are available to the charge of misconduct in public office?
The most common defences to misconduct in public office allege a failure by the prosecution to make out of the elements of the offence. For example, the defendant may argue that:



They are not a public officer. For example, if they are employed by a private company, even if they are working in a public space, they may argue that they did not take on public duties and responsibility with their role. The courts have found that an ambulance paramedic was not a public officer and that they owe a duty of care to their patient rather than the public at large.
They were not acting as a public officer at the time of the offence. For example, if a policeman is being prosecuted for conduct committed whilst off-duty, they may seek to argue that they were not in the role of a public officer at the time of the offence.
The conduct was accidental, i.e. it was a mistake made in good faith, not a wilful attempt at criminality. For example, if the defendant can convince the court that they were not aware of the duty that they are said to have breached, this could form the basis of their defence.
There was a reasonable excuse or justification for their behaviour.