The Issue of Public Law and Bridgetown City Council - Essay Example

Public Law Introduction The issue of public law is about the exercise of power by public bodies such as government departments, agencies, prison, police, statutory tribunals, courts, health regulatory and supervisory authorities, local authorities, etc.1 In case a public body makes unlawful or unfair decision while acting in a public capacity the wronged party can challenge such decision through a complaints procedure, judicial review, etc.2 This document examines various approaches and individual can take to raise a claim against in public law. The examination is based on the case study involving Bridgetown City Council and the individuals on the effects of proposed changes in the management of public recreational facilities and personal injuries. After evaluating the issues document, aims to provide advice to various parties including Sibyl, Tulipmania, VoicesInPublic, Wesley and Xavier. The advice is based on the application of public law fairly and squarely. Summary of the Case Study Bridgetown City Council has the responsibility to maintain and regulate a large open space known as Cliffside Downs as a place of public recreation according to Cliffside Downs Act 1861. Section 2 of the Act empowers the Council to enact rule and bye-laws as they shall deem necessary or amend the same to ensure proper for regulating, preserving or improving the Downs. All persons using the Downs are subject to the regulations and bye-laws hence they are predisposed to penalties and forfeitures contained in the Act. This document examines the effects of the newly proposed changes in early 2015, to the management of the Downs the bye-laws and regulations. The change includes eliminating existing limit of six on the annual number of licences granted for large public events. The council has proposed to designate a portion of Downs as a permanent showground. The proposed by-laws prohibit the publication of any photograph taken on the Downs without authority of the Council’s Press Office. In addition, they prevent any sport posing risk of injury to the spectators and other users of Downs. The persons found guilty of violating the bye-laws and regulations imposed by the Council would be liable for a maximum fine of £1000. The members of the public were demanded to submit their views on the proposals in writing to their local councillors. After a two week period of consultation, the plans were confirmed unaffected. Public law analysis and implementation Public bodies can act in the private capacity as is the case when they enter into contractual relationship with suppliers or as employers.3 In that case they are guided by the private laws. However, when carrying out the public functions then they do so under the control of the public law principles as authorized by the Act of parliament.4 Therefore, public bodies obtain their powers from the parliament in form of legislations to make decisions when executing their public functions. These functions are also known as statutory duties and powers. The public law decisions affect persons at one time or another in their lives. The scope of this document elaborate various ways in which individuals are affected by public law decision take by the local authority in controlling the management of Cliffside Downs. Public officers have to act in accordance with the public law principles. This implies they must act properly and in accordance with the law. The parliament has established a number of Ombudsmen with powers to examine the complaints raised by the public concerning maladministration. It address issues such as failure to provide information, delays, failure to act, acting improperly, failure to take relevant matters into account, issuing misleading statements, deviation from legal requirements, failure to maintain adequate records, etc.5 A person can challenge the decision of a public body in regard to delays in decision making of failure to make decision. The law establishes different ways in which a person can challenge decisions made by a public body. One can challenge the decision of a public body through a complaints procedure, ombudsman scheme or a court review.6 In this document, the specific approaches in challenging public bodies’ decisions are discussed under specific cases stated in the case study. Sibyl Sibyl, who is an ardent stroller and enjoys walking across Downs regularly, is upset by the fenced off areas and the ensuing damages caused to the turf by large public events. After hearing of the proposals by the management of Downs, she wrote to protest, but never got any reply. She later learnt from her friend who works in the Council that the chair of the council is a key shareholder in Whoopee Rides Ltd, a major fairground operator. When deciding on the course of action to take in pursuit of justice the wronged party should examine the nature of the case and the law to be applied. Where a matter is of public interest public laws apply.7 However, if the matter is a private issue the parties can pursue justice in through private laws. The issue in the case of Sibyl seems private because she gets upset to see the fenced off areas and damages caused on the turf by large public events. Cliffside Downs is a large open space that should be used for public recreation. Bridgetown City Council has the legal responsibility to maintain the area for recreation purpose. Maintenance includes undertaking functions such as fencing and authorizing the members of the public to use the facility for the right course. Under the public law, Bridgetown City Council cannot be held liable for dissatisfaction of the individuals as long as they are implementing their legal powers fairly and squarely. The public authority should carry out all the activities appropriate for the public interest.8 Therefore, Sibyl may not have any claim against the City Council under public law because fencing off public areas improves the quality of the area for the interest of the public. However, if she opts to launch a complaints procedure she may not succeed against the Council since the matter is private and does not fall under public law. Tulipmania Tulipmania has need holding annual flower show on the Downs during the last week of April every year. However, this year the Council has declined to grant them a licence after applying for the same. The reason given by the respondent is that the Ungarian State Circus has booked the week. They have tried to contact the council through telephone call without success. There is no communication apart from the automated telephone message requesting license applicants to contact Funtime Bookings who is the newly elected licencing agent. A member of the public or a group can raise complaints against a public body on matters relating to poor performance or delayed response.9 This is an example of the case involving Tulipmania. The local council denied them a license to hold their annual show on the Downs though it has been on-going in the past ten years. However, the effort by the Tulipmania to contact local council and schedule the show for another day has been frustrated because the Council does not respond to their calls. The issuing of license for holding various events on the public places is an issue of public concern hence falls under the public law. As stated in the case of Dunlop, Tulipmania can raise complaints against the City Council if they can prove that the denial of license to hold annual flower show will cause substantial loss to the organization.10 Therefore, Tulipmania should raise complaints against the local council. The local council should take time to hear the complaints raised by the petitioner within reasonable time. However, if by any chance the Tulipmania are not satisfied with the decision of the decision of the complaint procedure they can present the issue to Ombudsman for further investigation into the matter. Ombudsman should establish the issue and grant award or recommend the decision to be taken by the public body to ensure fairness and equity in the issue and other related matters in the future. Furthermore, they can investigate the matter to establish whether Tulipmania can hold the flower show at a later and the effect it will have on their reputation. As the last resort, Tulipmania can petition the court for judicial review of the issue. In this case Tulipmania will require representation by a solicitor. The court may provide discretionary award to the Tulipmania and set the grounds for future related issues. The award for successful complaints by the Tulipmania may include an apology by the local council or compensation for the lost revenue or reputation due to interruptions of the annual flower show. VoicesInPublic VoicesIinPublic is a local campaigning group whose mission is to secure a completely free space in Bridgetown and surrounding areas for personal self-expression. They demanded to know the number of licence applications the council had received in the preceding three years, but their request were declined on the ground of commercial sensitivity of the information. After conducting an investigation, the VoicesInPublic established that 92% of the users of the Downs were dissatisfied with the decision to extend the number of public events held on the Downs. An attempt by the organization to present their evidence to one of the local councillors became futile after they were told that such evidence would be useless since councillors represent individuals and not pressure groups. The VoiceInPublic can obtain any information held the public body by making an application to that body under Freedom of Information Act. In this regard, they should make it clear on what specific information they want. The public body must respond within reasonable time by giving the required information, but may have to charge some fees for offering the services.11 However, the failure by the Bridgetown City Council to provide VoiceInPublic with the information they had requested for gives the organization an opportunity to challenge the public body. Furthermore, the petitioner has complaints against the Council for failing to take into account the views of the public concerning the extension of the number of public events held in Downs. Such issue falls under public law because they affect the members of the public both at present and in the future.12 According to the matter in the case, VoiceInPublic followed the due procedure when requesting for information. They were categorical that they needed information regarding the number of applications for licenses the local council had received in the preceding three years. However, the council declined to provide that information on the claim of its sensitivity. Therefore, VoiceInPublic can challenge the local council through Ombudsman scheme. They will be required to file detailed information about the information they had requested for and the reason for decline by local council to offer that information. The Ombudsman office has powers to investigate the local council and obtain the requirements.13 However, in case they fail to act within reasonable time – usually three months, or do not offer satisfactory response to the petitioner then the petitioner can take the claim for judicial review. Unlike in complaints and ombudsman schemes the judicial review requires the petitioner to have a legal representation.14 Also, they have to encounter some cost for settling the issue through the court and the possibility of delay of the case pending the court’s hearing. Wesley Wesley brings his youth club frequently to the Downs for football games. One Saturday one of the boys accidentally kicked the ball into the face of Yolinde, a local celebrity who was sunbathing nearby and broke her nose. Although the youth club was carrying activities authorized by the management of the Downs the injury caused to other persons raises an issue of public security. All persons should carry out their activities in a manner that will not pose threat to other users of the same facilities of passers-by. According to the case of Osman 15 the public body can be held liable for tort caused by a person on another if that public body was responsible or in control over the activities of the one who caused the tort. In the case of Wesley, the City Council was responsible for the conducts of the visitors at Downs. They had imposed a law that prohibited anyone from engaging in any risky sport activities. Although football may not have been considered risky in the context of definition given by the council the fact that it caused injury to another party makes it risky. The sole reason to propose the law prohibiting risky sporting activities was to ensure public safety. Additionally, the Bridgetown City Council had proposed the penalty to be imposed on anyone who would be found guilty of infringing the law. The penalty proposed was £1000. Therefore, Wesley may have to pay the amount for breaching the law. However, they can raise complaints against such decision under the public law. If he opts to do so they may succeed against the council by claiming that football did not fall in the category of risky sport. The outcome of such claim is of public interest because it will determine similar cases in the future. For example, by classifying football as risky sporting activity it will influence how future football clubs will be required to behave such as insuring the spectators against possible loss or warning the spectators of the eminent of danger. Furthermore, it will determine whether the youth club can be allowed to continue playing at Downs in the future. This case can be taken for judicial review to obtain firm court’s decision. Xavier Xavier, one of the boys in the football club took several photographs of the match and published them on the club website the next day. However, Yolinde was clearly visible on the background of one of the photos. Yolinde raised complaints to the council on the issue of accident and that of photographs. A week later Wesley and Xavier received letter from the Council informing them that they had been fined £1000 each. In addition, the youth club was banned from future use of Downs for sports activities. In the bye-laws and other regulations imposed by Council the guests were not allowed to take photographs for publication. However, Xavier decided to take the photographs during the youth club football match and published them on the clubs website. He has been charged the proposed fine of £1000 for violating the rules. In this regard, Xavier can launch complaints with the Council and request them to withdraw the charges on the ground of unfairness and improper application of authority. However, if the complaints procedure fails the petitioner can seek the assistance of Ombudsman to investigate the matter and issue decision to the extent of breach of the law. However, if the both complaints and Ombudsman procedure fails the petitioner can present the case to the court for further clarification. The issue of public interest hence the court can conveniently apply the law to determine whether publication of the photographs on the websites constitutes publication in the context stated by the Council. The court’s decision will be significant importance in determining future cases involving the use the internet.16 Furthermore, Xavier can argue that by posting the photographs on the clubs website was an extension of publication to the ordinary viewers who must be the fans of such clubs. Such argument could be supported by the views that unless someone is interested in sport and the youth club in particular the photographs were out of publication to the common persons. Therefore, Xavier should launch claims to compel the Council to withdraw the fine. Conclusion The public law plays critical role of protection the public against abuse of power or unfair treatment by the public authority. Where a person is dissatisfied with functions or conducts of a public body they should raise complaints procedure or seek judicial review in order to reverse the public bodies decision. The court’s ruling has significant impact on future application of the law. However, the court’s decision focuses on establishing the rule of the law rather than issuing compensation for damages. In expression of dissatisfaction with decision of public body a person should seek further assistance to obtain justice. List of references CFOI, 2015, Campaign for Freedom of Information, Retrieved from https://www.cfoi.org.uk/ Campaign for Freedom of Information, A Short Guide to the Freedom of Information Act and Other New Access Rights. Pp. 1-33. https://www.cfoi.org.uk/pdf/foi_guide.pdf Dunlop v Woolahara Municipal Council [1982] AC 158 PC Elliott, M. & Thomas, R. 2014, Public Law, Oxford University Press. Pp. 1- 850 Feldman, D. 2009, English Public Law, Oxford University Press. Pp.1-1289. Public law Project, n.d., An Introduction to Public Law. pp. 1-33. Retrieved from http://www.publiclawproject.org.uk/data/resources/4/PLP_Short_Guide-1_1305.pdf Osman v United Kingdom (2000) 29 EHRR 24 Syrett, K. 2011, The Foundations of Public Law: Principles and Problems of Power in the British Constitution, Palgrave Macmillan. Pp. 1-320. Read More