Council faces tribunal quiz over trial report

TONY ALLEN

COUNCIL chiefs will have to explain their decision to publish the outcome of a report on the bungled Vance Miller kitchen fraud trial before a tribunal hearing took place.

Tony Allen is taking Oldham Council to an employment tribunal after being sacked as head of Oldham Trading Standards following the collapse of the case.

He sought an order preventing publication of an independent review on what went wrong before his claim for unfair dismissal is heard.

Mr Allen claims the Dobson Review is part of the council’s scheme to shift blame on to him despite him being cleared by the council’s disciplinary process of any wrongdoing in his handling of the case. He says he was sacked for speaking to the press.

Mr Allen says the council rushed out publication of the review, possibly to avoid any potential restrictions being placed on it by the tribunal. Last week the tribunal held an urgent hearing but decided not to prevent the publication as any prejudice created would be “old news” by the time the case is heard next year.

But the council has been ordered to explain why it published the outcome of the review the week before the matter was considered by the tribunal.

The tribunal could refer the matter to the Attorney General to decide whether to prosecute for contempt of court and could even bar the council from further participation in the proceedings.

Mr Allen said: “I welcome this decision. It was important for the tribunal to give consideration to the difficult issue of publishing the Dobson Review in advance of proceedings.

“Dobson’s Report is inaccurate, contains misleading information and substantial omissions about the true nature of the management of the Trading Standards case.

“The council’s behaviour in trying to pre-empt the tribunal was deplorable. This is a public authority, with unfettered access to legal advice, holding an independent tribunal in complete contempt.

“I am glad that the tribunal will now give consideration to whether that behaviour was unreasonable or scandalous.”

The 44-page Dobson Report has been published on the council’s website.

But Mr Allen says it is not a full enough picture of what happened and leaves out critical facts that he was seeking to get corrected.

The number of complaints against Mr Miller’s firm had been questioned. But Mr Allen has released figures, which were provided to the trial judge and the Dobson Review, that he says show complaints to the council significantly increased. The monthly figures rise steadily from 34 in January, 2005, to 184 in August, 2006.

Mr Allen insists it was never his intention to use powers to close the business.

On the report’s mention of a lack of resources devoted to the case and inexperience, he accepts resources are always limited by financial constraints but says more could not have been put into the case — with 14 trading standards officers, two experienced, retired detectives and a specialist disclosure officer involved.

Mr Allen believes the trial judge exceeded his jurisdiction in seeking to turn a criminal trial into a public inquiry into the trading standards investigation.

He says the council should have appealed, adding “it was the right decision to investigate this matter and it was the right decision to prosecute this case.”