Havering Council has lost a second legal bid to cover up a dossier of racism and sexism complaints – but has failed to rule out billing local taxpayers for a third roll of the dice.
Two judges in two months have refused the council permission to appeal against a transparency victory won by the Romford Recorder this summer.
After losing its first attempted appeal, Havering took the same arguments to a higher court – but that too has now dismissed them as lacking any legal merit.
“I do not consider either ground of appeal has any realistic prospect of success,” wrote Judge Stewart Wright.
In August, the Recorder won a three-year legal battle for access to an “internal self-assessment” dossier.
The 400-page file is filled with allegations by staff about institutional racism, misogyny, homophobia and disability discrimination.
Havering handed the file to the Local Government Association (LGA) in 2021, which found the town hall had a “disturbing” culture of “normalised” racism and sexism.
But the council only ever published the LGA’s short "feedback report" containing its findings – not the 400-page dossier of evidence on which it was based.
Even elected councillors were banned from reading the dossier – despite being asked to approve public spending on a series of remedies.
The Recorder requested the dossier under the Freedom of Information Act in 2021, but Havering refused to release it.
We took our case to the First-Tier Tribunal – also known as the Information Tribunal.
In August 2024, three judges finally issued their ruling, agreeing with the Recorder that there was overwhelming public interest in allowing Havering residents to scrutinise a public-funded investigation into allegations of institutional bigotry in local government.
But instead of handing the dossier to the Recorder as ordered, Havering Council hired top barristers to seek an appeal.
It also issued a press release in which chief executive Andrew Blake-Herbert said the document should remain suppressed because it was “historic” and held “no relevance or resemblance” to the council today.
But the Recorder pointed out that the only reason it was “historic” was because the council had refused to publish it contemporaneously, directly causing the three-year legal battle for its release.
Council leader Ray Morgon – who, while in opposition, had suggested the dossier should be released – then told the BBC he had changed his mind and now also believed it should remain suppressed.
The council argued that the report could inadvertently identify complaining staff members – but the tribunal has already dismissed that claim and the Recorder has stipulated since 2021 that the dossier should be redacted to preserve the anonymity of alleged victims.
In October, Judge Lynn Griffin rejected the council’s first appeal bid, saying its reasons for trying to overturn the tribunal’s decision were “inarguable” and had “no realistic prospect of success”.
The cash-strapped council, granted a government loan earlier this year and currently proposing library closures, then spent taxpayers’ money on a second appeal bid to a higher court, known as the Upper Tribunal.
The Upper Tribunal has now also refused Havering’s request.
“There was nothing erroneous or unlawful in Judge Griffin deciding that permission to appeal application at first instance,” wrote Judge Wright.
“Having considered the two grounds of appeal entirely afresh – grounds which are identical to those Judge Griffin considered – I respectfully agree with, and endorse, Judge Griffin’s reasons for finding that the grounds have no realistic prospect of success.”
The council now has the option to mount a third application to appeal.
If it chooses to do so, it can request an oral hearing in front of a different Upper Tribunal judge.
After being notified over the weekend that Havering had lost its latest appeal bid, the Recorder contacted the council press office to ask whether it could now accept the decision or would instead spend more public money on yet another appeal bid.
The press office did not respond.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here