City council to apologise to courts by end of month over misleading documents

Sheffield City Council has said it will apologise by the end of the month for a situation which saw two High Court judges misled during its 'street trees' dispute.

A member of the public had pressed for an update ten months on from the publication of Sir Mark Lowcock's report on the dispute. The Lowcock report found the courts considered misleading documents during the course of two judicial reviews brought against the council.

Responding to a question from the public in a Strategy and Resources Policy Committee meeting, council leader, Cllr Tom Hunt, said the apology was delayed because the council had to consider the legal points that were raised by Sir Mark's inquiry.

The Lowcock report considered the council's conduct during the controversial programme, which involved a contract with private firm Amey to fell 17,500 street trees over 25 years.

The dispute saw the council defend two judicial review challenges and seek a series of injunctions against members of the public and even one of its own councillors.

Under the contract Amey had been required to produce a 'Five Year Tree Management Strategy' and submit it to the council annually.

The strategy documents produced by Amey were never released to the public. However, by the autumn of 2015, public pressure was building on the council over its plan and as a result, the council created and published its own edited version of the Five Year Tree Management Strategy.

This document was then submitted by claimants in judicial review challenges that were brought against the council.

A judgment from Mr Justice Gilbert and a later judgment from Mr Justice Males both quoted extensively from the document. But the council never corrected either judge about the fact that it had been amended.

The Lowcock inquiry concluded that the council had added "significant new information" in its version and found that the events led the courts to be misled on two occasions. The inquiry did not find evidence that the court was knowingly misled.

Responding to the findings in June, the council's leader, Cllr Tom Hunt, said Sheffield would make a written apology to the courts in relation to the misleading documents.

Cllr Hunt added: "While the Inquiry found that the outcomes of legal action would have been the same without the council's version of the 5-year tree management strategy, this document was misleading and mishandled.

"The Council should have removed it from circulation and made the Courts aware that it was not part of Amey's operational approach."

A question submitted by Paul Brook, a prominent campaigner in the street trees dispute, during the committee session last Wednesday (13 December) revealed that the council has yet to deliver an apology to the courts.

Brook had submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request in September asking for an update on the apology.

The council missed the deadline for the FOI request, leading Brook to follow up on the request again in November. But no response was received. 

Brooks chased the council again on 1 December, setting a deadline of 6 December. The council asked for another 24 hours to be added to the deadline but missed the deadline again, according to Brooks. 

In the committee meeting, he asked: "Has the council apologised to the court yet, and will the apology to the court be made public?"

Responding to the question, Cllr Hunt said: "We need to make sure the apology properly reflects the findings in the report of Sir Mark Lowcock.

"The inquiry was independent, and it received its own legal advice on the matters that it said the council should apologise for. The council was not a party to that advice, so it has had to consider the legal points that were raised.

"The council wanted to be sure itself, through examining the cases, that it concurs with the inquiry finding, that the misleading impression the court had from the document did not make a difference to the outcome of the hearings."

He said he has been assured the apology will be sent to the court before the end of this month and noted that the apology will be made public.

The committee is scheduled to meet next week to set out its progress towards meeting Sir Mark's complete recommendations.

Adam Carey