Speech – Housing Rights for Domestic Violence Victims & Survivors (4th Nov 2014, Full Council)

Text of speech below:-
Violence is at the heart of abuse of power. Abuse of power is at the heart of violence.

Domestic violence takes place in the home in a context of trust. It violates a safe space which is emotional as well as physical.
So when a woman’s access to a bank account is taken away, when a partner has been ‘persuaded’ into having sex or when vulnerable family members are systematically isolated, violence is already taking place within the home.

We cannot just understand violence as a single physical act giving rise to physical harm – sometimes there is no such act to speak of. Violence in the home must also be understood in terms of its effects and in terms of the attitudes that make it possible. 

The abuser is permitted to treat the victim, not as a human being but as a blank canvass and as an object. The abuser is permitted to behave in this way by wider society through a continued failure to intervene. And the permission given to the abuser encourages the victim to implicitly accept the abuse. In many instances the victim is silenced by a culture which shifts blame and responsibility on the victim, should she choose to leave her relationship or marriage.
To keep on surviving in an abusive relationship, the victim needs to disavow their humanity and experience of vulnerability. Many continue to do so over a period of years – placing cultural expectations, the interests of their children, and the interests of the perpetrator over and above their own basic human needs. 
Where the victim has experienced abuse for a long period of time, he or she is often also rendered voiceless by trauma.

So too are the children in a family who watch this behaviour even if they may not entirely understand it and are later unable to speak about it. 
So when a woman or man knocks on the door of a council and says that they wish to leave everything behind in pursuit of a new life, this is not just an act of last resort and desperation but also one of immense courage, resilience and survival. It should be recognized as such.
It marks a turning point where a victim realizes their own humanity and value is equal to that of others. 
It is a moment where a person shows determination and the will to vocalise their traumatic experiences.
It is a moment of opportunity, not just for the victim, but also for the council – to end patterns of conduct that are cyclical and result in huge cost to society. 
The council must in its approach be alive to the sensitivity of this moment, alive to the emotional ambivalence of the survivor, and alive to the power it has to support a new and different life for the survivor. 
That is why it is wrong to ‘gatekeep’ – creating bureaucratic loops for survivors to jump through before being rehoused. 
That is why it is wrong to wait until physical abuse has occurred before rehousing a survivor. 
And that is why it is wrong to push survivors to the back of the social housing queue. 
We have an obligation to create real choice for victims and survivors – so they are empowered to make the incredibly difficult decision to leave if they wish to do so. 
For these reasons I urge all of Council to consider how best they can help survivors to make genuinely free choices.
I thank Council for listening, for speaking and for responding on this important issue.

And I move this amendment in my name.


The One Barnet Ping-Pong – Cornelius’s Answer and My Response

His response to my open letter:-

Dear Miss Patel
Thank you for this.
In the interests of residents we will sign as soon as possible.  Think of the cuts that will have to be made because of the legal expenses and continuing delay. Legal costs £500k and missed savings of £700k per month.  No alternative to the plan suggested by anyone.
I do not agree with your selective reading of the judgement
My response to his open letter:-
Dear Cllr Cornelius

It is nobody’s fault but your Conservative administration’s that you failed to take proper legal advice and/or follow proper legal advice when embarking on a project of this scale. This is what exposed you to the judicial review in the first place.
Also, in September 2012 I drew your attention to the legal duty to consult which is recorded in the public questions section of a Cabinet meeting and asked when it would be complied with. I even wrote a Guardian article about the situation. That question remained unanswered.
Any sensible Conservative administration that was paying even the slightest bit of notice to concerns raised by residents would have taken immediate steps to rectify this situation. That would have prevented a judicial review and the costs you claim are mounting.
Best wishes
Ms. Reema Patel
So that’s decided. The High Court decides Barnet Council failed to consult with residents but lets them off on a technicality. Instead of taking the hint, Barnet Tories decide they’ll continue to fail to consult with local residents.
Looks like the residents of Barnet won’t get much of a say until we get a change of administration, then.

One Barnet Judicial Review – My Open Letter to Leader of Barnet Council

Dear Cllr Cornelius,

I’m writing again in relation to One Barnet – in particular the so-called legal victory you describe (inaccurately in my view) as ‘clear and complete’. A few questions which I hope you’ll respond to.

I’ve copied in my local  Conservative MP Theresa Villiers as one of my questions is also addressed to her.

1) Firstly, the judge decided that your administration had not consulted, and never intended to consult on One Barnet. Are you, in light of his decision, now going to suspend the signing of the contract until effective and adequate consultation with residents has taken place?

Sarah Sackman and myself wrote the following article outlining why this consultation is so important. Essentially, the proposals to lock down the Council into a 10 year contract flies in the face of democratic governance of public services and will undermine local participation in the shaping of those public services. Residents are at the very least entitled to be aware of, and to have a say in such an important decision about where those services are based, and how they are administered.

The judgement in Nash v Barnet Council specifically tells you what this consultation should include. It says –

‘Because here the Council never set out to consult about its outsourcing programme at all, the present case is not a good occasion to offer guidance on the form that such a consultation might have taken. The essential is simply that the representatives should have been given the opportunity to express views or concerns about outsourcing the functions or services in question that could inform the Council’s decision-taking both on whether to proceed and on matters requiring attention in the arrangements eventually made.

As the council has not yet proceeded with the contract, it therefore follows that consultation is still possible, and in the light of this judgement, Barnet Council should invite residents to express their views or concerns about One Barnet, and should give those residents sufficient time to express those views and any concerns they may have.

2) Secondly, you will recall that  in September 2012 I asked your administration a written question at a public meeting (which was unspectacularly chaired by Brian Coleman) as to when it would comply with its legal duty to consult on One Barnet. Strangely, for the first time in the history of any such public meeting, no written answers were provided, and I was assured by the chair of that meeting, Brian Coleman, that this question would be answered ‘later on’ in the meeting. No measures were taken to ensure this question was answered, and you claimed in that meeting that ‘no decision had yet been taken’

I’m afraid this question remains unanswered. When will you comply with your legal duty to consult on both contracts? That the judicial review was unsuccessful because it was allegedly out of time does not mean you do not have a legal duty to consult. You could consult now if you wished to and it is clear from the judgement that you have a continuing obligation to do so.

3) Thirdly the judgement is extremely critical of Barnet Council’s failure to consult and engage with residents. Some time ago Ms. Villiers endorsed the Council’s decision to enter into the One Barnet programme in a letter to me, citing difficult economic circumstances. What is Ms. Villier’s position on Barnet Council’s failure to consult before entering into the programme; and is it congruent with yours?

4) A number of your councillors claimed that your Conservative administration had consulted.  In the High Court your barrister was reduced to having to claim there was no requirement to consult at all. The judgement is fairly clear that not only did you fail in your duty to consult, you never intended to do so at all.

Are you prepared to accept the ongoing dishonesty on your administration’s behalf which has been exposed by the court process?

I very much look forward to hearing from you on all four of these matters.

Yours sincerely,

Reema Patel

Saving Friern Barnet Library: More Notes from a McKenzie Friend… (LBB v P. Phoenix, D. Gardner, P. Albert, K. Martin)


The hearing of the London Borough of Barnet’s claim for possession commenced on the 17th December at 10.30 and ran for a full day before a packed courtroom. Having put in the initial defence which secured a two-day trial, I remained a McKenzie friend at this hearing for the defendants – taking and drafting up witness statements and working closely with the legal team. Some of the defendants are from the Occupy movement. One defendant was a resident and a long-term community activist and joined his name to the defence – Mr. Keith Martin. The London Borough of Barnet’s legal team opted not to pursue costs against Mr. Martin at the conclusion of this hearing.

This blog post is a short summary of the arguments deployed for those interested residents who were not able to be at the hearing; either because the courtroom was too full, or because they could not attend.  It may well also be of interest to lawyers. However, I’d like to stress that whilst this blog posts summarises the main legal issues discussed, it is by no means a case note. Nor is it a description of events on the day – for that, please see Mrs. Angry (Theresa Musgrove)’s excellent blog.

The barrister who very kindly agreed to represent the defendants was Ms. Sarah Sackman of Francis Taylor Building; also a former Barnet resident. The solicitors who were instructed were Leigh Day & Co – with Richard Stein leading. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank both of them on behalf of all supporters and activists for their work.

The Council closed Friern Barnet library on 5th April 2012.  The building itself is of significant aesthetic and architectural value, and was purpose built as a library in 1933-34. There was a sit-in on the 5th April, when Save Friern Barnet Library campaigners protested vociferously against the library closure. There had been a significant ‘Save Friern Barnet Library’ campaign which had been running for over a year before then; there was a petition which triggered a Council debate, and from the point of closure onwards, the campaigners set up pop-up libraries on the green beside the library in order to protest against the closed empty Council building. These pop up libraries happened on an almost weekly basis, on Saturdays.  It was therefore clear that prior to the occupation, there had been an ongoing protest and campaign against the closure of the library.

On the 15th June 2012, Maria Persak-Enefer, a local architect, had applied to have the building listed as a community asset pursuant to the Localism Act 2011. This application was not accepted by the local authority until 10th December 2012, after Leigh Day & Co wrote a pre-action protocol letter threatening judicial review and listing the failure to determine this application as one of the grounds for judicial review.

On the 4th September 2012, an ex-librarian and a member of the Occupy movement had entered the building through a window which had been left open as a result  of the sit-in movement. The only damage to the building had been the removal of a security alarm from the wall, which was immediately attended to overnight by a security officer. Once inside the building, the ex-librarian was joined on the 5th September 2012 by a fellow member of the Occupy movement, Peter Phoenix, who then took over the running of the community library. Phoenix described himself when giving evidence as an experienced occupier, and confirmed that he was known in the Occupy movement for his expertise in facilitating agreements between communities and public bodies (having undertaken such work over a period of 20 years). He confirmed that the purpose of the occupation had been to facilitate such an agreement between the community and public bodies.

He contacted the Council immediately about negotiating as to the provision of a community library in Friern Barnet. The Council wrote back with a view to commencing negotiations – and offered to meet with the occupiers on the occupied library premises. Members of the community were then invited by the occupiers to the negotiations. The claim for possession was issued on the 10th September – the same day as when the Council met with the occupiers and community on the premises; and the same day on which the Deputy Chief Executive of the Council Julie Taylor said that ‘no snap decisions would be made’ in response to Diane Taylor (a freelance journalist) ‘s question as to whether the Council would be taking measures to evict the occupants.

In making their first legal point, the defendants relied upon this statement, the communications between the Council and the occupiers up until this point, and upon the fact that no official had explicitly asked for possession of the premises up until the point of issuing possession proceedings to argue for an implied licence (as opposed to unlawful trespass) on the property. The judge concluded that there was no implied licence; as the failure to ask for vacant possession or to use the term ‘trespasser’ was not in and of itself a grant of a licence. The judge also stated that, as a licence was a contract,this would require the existence of a legal entity, person or groups a licence was granted to, and that upon the face of the minutes it was clear that council officials had no authority to licence the occupiers to remain on the premises. The argument that there was an implied licence therefore failed – it was concluded that the occupiers were on the land unlawfully.


A second point was raised by Ms. Sackman on behalf of the defence. During the course of these negotiations the occupants inside the library had essentially re-opened the library, running it as, naming and labelling it the ‘People’s Library’. The response from the local community was as quick as it was remarkable – over 8000 books were donated, to the effect that the library had more books than the original Council library had. Community members operated a volunteer-run rota, and offered free assistance and community services. As a result numerous classes were run on an almost-daily basis between Tuesdays and Sundays from October up until the hearing. These classes included  creative writing, belly-dancing, pilates, yoga, comic book classes, French and chemistry. There had been a Cabaret evening, open mic nights and rock gigs inside the library. There had also been regular community campaign meetings – including meetings of the Save Friern Barnet Library inside the building, and there had been a book signing with renowned author Will Self, as well as a campaign day focusing on highlighting broader cuts to public services including the attendance of the leader of the Green Party and key individuals from UNISON.

The nature, manner, and form of this protest – namely, the running of the occupied library itself – as a library – was eloquently argued by Ms. Sackman to be the exercise of the right to protest against the cut to that specific library. It was argued that this right was interfered with, and therefore engaged.

That is to say – the very act of taking over an empty building which once was formerly a library in order to run it as a library – to show that there was still a need for the community library – was the exercise of the community’s right to freedom of expression, and of its right to assemble and associate in a protest against the closure of that library. These two rights are enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 10, and Article 11).

This argument was accepted by the judge – who accepted that both the rights to freedom of expression, and the right to assemble and associate had been interfered with by the Council. She recognised that the occupation formed a part of a pattern of protests long before the occupation of the library itself, including the pop up libraries situated on the green beside the library. She also recognised the significant publicity that the campaign had gained both nationally and internationally.

The judge recognised that the defendants had not, as was ruled in the case relating to the occupation of St. Paul’s churchyard (City of London v Samede, 2012), stopped individuals from worshipping. Neither had they breached the peace. They had in fact been a welcome addition to the local community, and had gained the trust of local businesses. There had been no complaints made about the restriction of local trade – and indeed had engaged in positive activity with the local community and business.

This meant that the Council had to demonstrate that this interference was necessary, proportionate and the least restrictive measure available in the circumstances) in order to justify its decision to seek that possession order.

Ms. Sackman had argued that the Council was required to seek the least restrictive measures of interfering with the Art 10 and Art 11 rights which had been engaged. She argued that the least restrictive measures would have been granting a licence to the occupiers to remain on the premises until the building had been sold at the end of the 18 month period provided for by the Localism Act 2011; as opposed to pursuing a possession order.

The community had heard on the 10th December 2012 that the application for local listing of the community library had been finally determined – and that the Council building had been listed as a community asset under the Localism Act 2011. This essentially meant that when the Council marketed the building a community group could put in an expression of interest for a bid, and then use a period of six months to formulate and submit a bid. Under the present regulations, the Council would be prohibited from selling the building for 18 months from the point at which that expression of interest had been put in.Ms. Sackman therefore argued that the least restrictive measures would have been granting a licence to the occupiers to remain on the premises until the building had been sold at the end of the 18 month period provided for by the Localism Act 2011 legislation; and not pursuing a possession order. It had already been adduced in evidence that the occupiers would be willing to leave the premises once they had been allowed to exercise their right to protest during the 18 month period, and once the community bid under the Localism Act 2011 had been considered.

Ms. Sackman also argued that the Council had not provided any substantial reasons for why the Council’s interference with these rights to lawful assembly and freedom of expression was proportionate. In this case, the Council had only argued that there would be an infringement of planning and building safety regulations as the occupiers had, by sleeping in the building, turned non-residential premises into residential premises.

However, the judge decided that, upon the facts, the Council’s decision to pursue a possession order was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim; on the basis that allowing the occupiers to remain in the building during the 18 month period would be prejudicial to any other alternative community bidders who wished to put in a competitive bid for the asset under the Localism Act 2011. She held that the Council would be exposed to ‘justified claims of bias’, would render the Council to challenge by judicial review, would put off other community groups if there was no guarantee of vacant possession, and that allowing the occupation to continue would constitute an interference with the lawful right to the application to participate in bidding under the Localism Act 2011. She held also, that once the London Borough of Barnet had obtained vacant possession, it would be easier to allow potential bidders to enter the library.

Finally, the judge concluded that a licence could not have been granted by the London Borough of Barnet to the individuals on the premises as a less restrictive interference with these human rights as (i) at no stage had the defendants made an offer to enter into a legal licence with the claimants, and (ii) the defendants had not identified who the legal persons to be granted that licence were. Furthermore, at no stage the defendants had named a person who was willing to sign a licence.

It was concluded that

– entry onto the premises, notwithstanding negotiations and the conduct of the council was unlawful and was trespass (and not an implied licence);

– the individuals on the premises’ human rights to lawful assembly and association; and to freedom of expression were interfered with by the Council (these rights were ‘engaged’);

and that

– this interference was proportionate and the least restrictive measure available to the Council in light of the need to maintain an impartial, non-prejudicial sale process for diverse community groups to have an opportunity to bid for the  recently listed local community library.

Ms. Sackman’s application for permission to appeal was rejected; although there remains the recourse to apply to the Court of Appeal.

In terms of legal outcomes – a possession order was granted to the Council, but this will not be enforced until February 2013 – and the Council provided a legal undertaking to that effect. Furthermore,  the community has an opportunity to engage again in discussions with the local authority about the running of a community library under a contractual licence. Finally, the community will now, upon the listing of the library as a community asset, be able to put together a bid for the library during a period in which the Council will not be able to sell the property.

Labour Women’s Network Political Day

The conference opened with a gutsy and uplifting speech by Barbara Follett, who urged us all to ‘get on with it’, not to give up in the face of structures and aggression which was designed to put us as women off from political life, to use the game in order to change the game, and to in general, be persistent. At some point during this speech, Kirsty McNeill tweeted something along the lines of ‘There is a baby crawling along the back of the hall. This, my friends, is what a feminist space looks like.’ It got 20 retweets and summarised the uplifting and positive mood of the day Read the rest of this entry »

Chipping Barnet Labour object to Cat Hill development

The deadline for lodging an objection with Enfield Council to the not-so-new but rehashed plans for the development of the old Middlesex University site based in Cat Hill passed today. There are a number of concerns with the plans so far; traffic and congestion near the already congested roundabout a notable issue, the non-existence of a flood risk assessment for the surrounding area, the preservation of rare species, the planting of oak trees, and also – the height of some of the proposed developments and its conformity with the rest of the local area.

Read the rest of this entry »

Why Coleman’s Getting Off Scot-Free

I’ve just been notified of the fact that Brian Coleman has been charged with common assault.

This is currently breaking news on the BBC and the Evening Standard.

Read the rest of this entry »