Council publishes redacted advice from Cherie Booth QC after FOI request

Liverpool City Council has published a redacted legal opinion written by Cherie Booth QC relating to the controversial appointment of a former chief executive.

In a response to a freedom of information request, Liverpool said it was of the opinion that the information asked for was provided by way of legal professional privilege and accordingly exempt from disclosure.

However, the council added that LPP could be waived at the discretion of the client. The authority therefore decided it would publish a redacted copy of the advice it received from the Matrix Chambers silk.

Liverpool said the redaction regarded information that was not pertinent to the terms of the FOI request.

Publication of the further advice comes just weeks after a row broke out between the council and two local newspapers that ran a story based on a leaked opinion from Booth.

The story in the Trinity Mirror-owned Liverpool Echo and the Liverpool Daily Post related to the appointment of David McElhinney as acting chief executive of the council in July 2010, initially for a six-month period.

McElhinney was chief executive officer of Liverpool Direct – a £70m-a-year joint venture between BT and the council – at the time.

Liverpool had sought advice from Booth on the potential for conflicts of interest and the proposed steps for dealing with them.

The newspapers claimed in their story that the council had not fully followed the QC’s advice on the potential for conflicts of interest and the proposed steps for dealing with them. The papers also published a copy of that opinion.

However, the council countered that the leaked document was only an initial view, and that the relevant part of that advice – in relation to a proposed period of gardening leave for McElhinney after the temporary appointment ended – did not appear in a later, final opinion. The authority insisted that it had fully complied with that final advice.

The “further advice” published by Liverpool covers a modified proposal that emerged following telephone conversations between the silk and the council.

In the advice, which was dated 24 June 2010, Ms Booth said she was satisfied that although there were conflicts of interest in relation to McElhinney, there were also “compelling business reasons” why he was the right person to undertake the job for the next six months.

She added that the job descriptions and protocol were sufficient to comply with both McElhinney and LCC’s obligations to the district auditors and the council tax payers of LCC.

“In these circumstances I am content to advise LCC that this arrangement is lawful and meets its statutory and fiduciary obligations,” Booth concluded.