It was National Library Day on Saturday, and the Save Kensal Rise Library campaigners continued their vigil, guarding the library from closure. They have been dealt a blow this morning by the Court of Appeal, which has denied them leave to appeal to the Supreme Court following the defeat of their case last December.
The Court of Appeal’s original judgment gave the campaigners one glimmer of hope that remains alight. It noted that the local council, Labour controlled Brent, could ‘bear a share’ of keeping Kensal Rise Library open without incurring costs by allowing volunteers to run the library. The campaigners urge the council to ‘preserve this vital local resource’ by allowing a community-run service — they are also urging the secretary of state to intervene under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. The council insists that it is working towards a solution, but points out that the courts have ‘vindicated’ its actions at every stage.
The legal avenue has been far more profitable for campaigners against library closures in Gloucestershire and Somerset. Those councils will not be seeking a joint appeal against the High Court’s decision that they acted unlawfully by closing libraries. A spokesman for Gloucestershire County Council said,
‘We are not appealing against the High Court’s decision. We have drafted a fresh strategy that aims to make the most of its limited resources, new technology and volunteers to create a library service that works…We are currently consulting on our new proposals.’
Interestingly, the two library campaigns ran similar strategies when it came to equality regulation compliance, which makes their contrasting fortunes all the more stark. Indeed, the Somerset and Gloucester case turned on that issue alone. The High Court’s judgment noted that ‘the relevant decisions had been taken without the necessary ‘due regard’ required by the public sector equality duty.’ (All other points went against the Claimants.) On the other hand, the Brent campaigners lost on all counts, including on grounds of alleged equality non-complaince.
It only goes to show how integral bureaucratic equality regulations have become in the fabric of our national life. The West Country councils, having failed to show ‘due regard’, are having to reconfigure their plans. Whereas Brent council can now execute what Philip Pullman has described as its ‘philistine’ strategy.
Comments