Letter: Westminster took legal advice
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Dame Shirley Porter
Sir: In his letter of 25 February, Cllr Peter Bradley refers to the "charge" against Westminster Conservatives that, inter alia, they knew that their policies were not reasonable, lawful or in the public interest. Mr Bradley has apparently entirely ignored the evidence which was put before the appointed auditor during the public inquiry into housing in Westminster.
In particular, he appears to be unaware that Robert Lewis, the then deputy chief city solicitor, has made it abundantly clear that he advised the members that the proposed designated sales policy was lawful and that in doing so he was accurately reflecting the advice given by both Jeremy Sullivan QC and Alan Wilkie (now QC). In particular, Mr Lewis told the district auditor, John Magill, that he explained to Mr Sullivan the political background to the proposed policy, a fact the latter has never disputed. It also emerged in the evidence before the inquiry that the then chief solicitor, Matthew Ives, himself specifically advised the whole council that the proposed policy was lawful.
My counsel made very clear and detailed submissions to the auditor. He left no one in any doubt as to the exact and specific answer I have to all of the unfounded allegations that have been made against me. I have maintained throughout this inquiry that, in arriving at his "provisional findings", Mr Magill got both the law and the relevant facts completely wrong.
The injustice of the situation is that because of the way this inquiry has been conducted, my reputation has been wrongfully imputed, and until I am vindicated in due course by the courts, Mr Bradley appears to consider himself free to make political capital as and when he wishes.
Yours faithfully,
SHIRLEY PORTER
London, W1
1 March
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments