There have been interesting developments on the matter of Cllr Finnigan and his dodgy election.

It has made the Yorkshire Evening Post today and it transpires that former Councillor Stewart McArdle is involved in a petition to the High Court.

However, Cllr Finnigan has revealed that his defence is based on a ruling that being a Councillor is classed as work in the area based on a legal precedent. A quick sniff on’t interweb supports his case. (From NALC legal topic note 28:-)

A person is qualified under paragraph 5 (c) above for re-election if he is already a councillor. The Court of Appeal held in Parker v Yeo (1992) that being a councillor was “work” and that the work was carried on in the area where the councillor was an elected member.

However, a closer look at Parker vs Yeo reveals that it is not as simple as it first appears. The Mr Yeo in question had actually retired during the term of his office due to his employer ceasing trading two years before the election. It was decided in the Court of appeal that work could include councillor duties in the wider sense as he wasn’t actually working. (See section 2.03 of this document for more).

Cllr Finnigan is on much shakier ground than this as he has declared it as

c. my principal or only place of work during those 12 months has been in that
*county/district/London borough/county borough at (give address of place of work and, where
appropriate, name of employer):

Well, it obviously can’t be his only place of work as he was working at Cleckheaton Town Hall until earlier in the year. So, which one was his principal place of work? Was it full time employment? Did he get more money as a Councillor (indeed a member of the executive board as he has been since a subtle change in the rainbow alliance last year)?

Ask yourself a question. Why would someone want to be on a Council for somewhere you don’t actually live in, work in or own property in?

(Well, there is one obvious answer…)

Speaking of sticky wickets, this made me chuckle…