Porter v. Maggill [2001] UKHL 67

Quick Summary

Westminster leaders Dame Shirley Porter and David Weeks ran a plan to sell council homes in marginal wards to tilt elections. They knew the legal risk but carried on. The auditor said this was wilful misconduct that cost the council money. The House of Lords agreed. The Court also set the modern test for bias: ask what a fair-minded and informed observer would think. Here, there was no real possibility of bias or unfair delay in the auditor’s process.

Issues

• Did the councillors commit wilful misconduct by using housing policy for party gain?
• Did targeting sales in marginal wards amount to political corruption?
• Did apparent bias or unreasonable delay in the auditor’s inquiry breach Article 6 ECHR (fair trial)?

Rules

• Article 6 ECHR: protects the right to a fair and timely process; used to test claims of bias and delay.
• Fair-minded and informed observer: would they see a real possibility of bias?
• Wilful misconduct (Local Government Finance Act 1982): acting knowingly improper, or with reckless indifference to the law.

Facts (Timeline)

1. 1986: After a close election, council leaders seek to boost Conservative votes in eight marginal wards.
2. They design a housing sales drive to likely Conservative buyers in those wards.
3. Legal warnings flag risks to statutory duties to the homeless, but the plan continues.
4. District auditor John Maggill investigates; concludes wilful misconduct causing council loss.
5. Leaders challenge the findings, claiming bias and delay under Article 6.

Arguments

Judgment

Held: The House of Lords upheld the auditor’s findings. Porter and Weeks committed wilful misconduct by using council housing policy to gain electoral advantage. Claims of apparent bias and unreasonable delay failed under both common law and Article 6.

• Primary intent: electoral gain through targeted sales in marginal wards.
• No breach of fair trial: a fair-minded and informed observer would not see a real possibility of bias.
• Result: liability for financial loss to Westminster City Council.

Ratio

Bias is judged by the view of a fair-minded and informed observer, asking whether there is a real possibility of bias. Where officials knowingly put party advantage over legal duties, that is wilful misconduct.

Why It Matters

• Sets the modern, student-friendly bias test used across jurisdictions.
• Shows courts will treat policy for party gain as misconduct.
• Confirms auditors can investigate complex governance failures without violating Article 6.

Key Takeaways

1. Observer test: not the judge’s view, but the public’s reasonable, informed view.
2. Real possibility, not remote risk: the threshold is practical, not fanciful.
3. Purpose matters: electoral motives can convert policy into wilful misconduct.
4. Article 6: complexity and careful inquiry do not equal unfair delay.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: PORTER — Public Observer • Real possibility • Targeted wards • Electoral motive • Reckless indifference.

1. Spot: Is there a real possibility of bias to a fair-minded, informed observer?
2. Probe: Was the purpose lawful or political gain?
3. Pin: If knowingly improper → wilful misconduct.

IRAC Outline

Glossary

Apparent Bias

Bias as seen by a fair, informed observer—appearance matters, not just proof of actual bias.

Wilful Misconduct

Knowing wrongdoing or reckless indifference to legal duties.

Article 6 ECHR

Right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal.

FAQs

Related Cases