THE outgoing chairman of Ledbury Town Council, Nina Shields, says councillors were not acting "unreasonably" when taking the decision to contest a costly and divisive judicial review.

The town council lost the judicial review, which was brought against it by Cllr Liz Harvey, and council reserves have been subsequently drained to the tune of £220,000 - because of legal bills.

But Cllr Shields, who spoke out after a controversial email between herself and Cllr Harvey was leaked on social media, said: "Once the council had been advised by a QC, wrongly as it turned out, that they had a 75% chance of winning the case, it is not unreasonable that they pursued it from that point."

In her email to Cllr Harvey, Cllr Shields said: "No one knew what the outcome of the judicial review would be until the judge handed down her decision. Up until that point, advisors were expressing opinion."

But Cllr Harvey says the town council had also received alternative legal advice which indicated it would lose the judicial review, but it still went ahead.

Cllr Harvey launched the judicial review after she was accused of bullying staff, accusations which she always strongly denied.

But she was still sanctioned from speaking and voting at town council meetings, except at full council meetings, even though a Code of Conduct investigation, carried out by Herefordshire Council, had cleared her of the accusations - in advance of the judicial review, which she won.

Cllr Shields said that Cllr Harvey still wished to publish more background information "for which there appears to be no admissible evidence in support", according to Cllr Shields.

But legal advice had warned against this, in case it led to more court cases for the town council, and further legal bills.

Some of this information appears to be recordings, possibly made at 'closed' council meetings, by persons unknown.

Cllr Shields told the Reporter: "We understand that some recordings were made of some meetings by person or persons unknown, and without the consent of those present. Should such recordings exist, they are inadmissible evidence. It is not clear whether or not they do exist but indications are that they were made. My assumption is that such recordings are likely to be of closed sessions."

If the recordings do exist, Cllr Harvey appears to have access to them.

In her email to Cllr Harvey, Cllr Shields said: "We cannot rely on evidence from your illicit recordings of meetings which are ‘inadmissible evidence’."

Cllr Harvey told the Reporter: "I don’t know why Nina chooses to refer to meeting recordings as ‘illicit. Recording of council meetings is allowed."

Cllr Harvey believes a report in the Judicial Review circumstances, carried out by a QC for the council, was not comprehensive enough.

She said: " The QC report omits some very important facts from its description of events leading to the circumstances of the judicial review."

Cllr Shields said the town council could be "in breach of the duty of care", concerning public money, if it went down the route of blaming or targeting individuals or groups, in an attempt to reclaim any costs.

Concerning this point in her leaked email, Cllr Shields said: "Cllr Harvey has already reclaimed all her costs in relation to the judicial review. The costs referred to in the email are those that the council might incur if they decided to pursue further the matter of reclaiming costs, or were put in a position of defending a case of defamation if wrongful accusations were made with no evidence."