Appeals machine cranks into action: “Your membership remains terminated”
JVL introduction
A full twenty months after submitting his appeal against auto-exclusion, Graham Bash has finally heard that his 52 year membership of the Labour Party “remains terminated”. See below the text of the letter sent to him by the Secretary of the National Constitution Commission (NCC). In his immediate response to his de facto expulsion in November 2021, for signing an Open Letter organised by a proscribed group (Labour Against the Witchhunt), Graham gave short shrift to the charges against him:
- The Open Letter from LAW was dated January 2020. The date of the proscription of LAW was July 2021. LAW was not a proscribed organisation at the time I signed the letter.
- I am not a current member of LAW. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no such category as LAW ’supporter’. I therefore deny that I am a ‘supporter’ of LAW. There is no justification for this investigation.
He went on to make clear his principled opposition to bans and proscriptions of socialist organisations and his agreement with the many thousands, including LAW, who oppose the witch-hunt of Labour Party members. His concise formal appeal letter appears at the bottom of this post.
We have highlighted the dysfunctional nature of Labour’s appeals process, especially as it applies to the 350+ members auto-excluded for alleged support of a proscribed group. It is not unusual for individuals to hear no response to their appeal submission, even after sending repeated reminders over many months, some like Graham for more than a year. His is one of a trickle of cases starting to churn through the system. Another is that of Pamela Fitzpatrick whose supporters have organised legal representation for a challenge to her auto-exclusion, on similar retrospective charges to Graham’s.
A notable feature of both their cases is the absence of any semblance of transparency about the NCC hearings which are held without the accused person present. They are not told who sits on the panel or what evidence is presented. They are given no response to the grounds of their appeals and no opportunity to counter arguments that may be presented against them.
To quote Pamela: “This is Starmer’s party. It’s certainly not Labour.”
(NWI)
Notice of Outcome of Appeal: Not Upheld
Dear Mr Bash
I am writing to you regarding the appeal that you submitted pursuant to Chapter 2, Clause I.6 of the Labour Party Rule Book (the Rules) on Monday, 08 November 2021.
A panel of the National Constitutional Committee (the Panel) met on Thursday, 29 June 2023 and considered your appeal.
The Panel carefully reviewed the information before it, including the correspondence you submitted in relation to the appeal. I have set out the findings of the Panel below.
Having considered all the evidence in relation to the NEC decision and the appeal, including minutes of the NEC’s Exclusion Panel meeting from Thursday 28 October 2021, the Panel unanimously agreed that the findings of the NEC were neither i) flawed nor ii) unsupported by the evidence.
The Panel found there was evidence to support the NEC’s finding that you signed an open letter from a proscribed group and this constituted support for a proscribed group. Further, the Panel did not accept your arguments in respect of the retrospective nature of the NEC’s decision.
The decision of the Panel is final. Consequently, and in accordance with the Rules, your membership of the Labour Party remains terminated.
Membership Reapplication Chapter 6, Clause I.2 of the Rules provides that the National Executive Committee will not normally consider any application for re-admission to the Labour Party until a minimum of five years has elapsed from the date of the termination of your membership of the Labour Party.
The five-year period from the date of your termination will elapse on Thursday, 05 November 2026. If you wish to reapply for membership this date, you can apply by contacting the Governance and Legal Unit at the Newcastle address above or by sending an email (and any supporting documentation) to [email protected].
Yours sincerely,
Ms Katy Leighton
Secretary to the National Constitutional Committee
Governance and Legal Unit
The Labour Party
c.c. Labour South East
Graham Bash’s appeal against expulsion in November 2021
From: Graham BashSubject: Re: Important information regarding your membershipDate: 8 November 2021 at 22:28:14 GMTTo: Disputes <[email protected]>
Please take this as my appeal against expulsion on the following grounds:
1. The NEC panel found that I had signed the LAW letter of January 2020. This is not in dispute and was not denied by me in my letter of response of 16th August.2. The NEC panel found that LAW was an organisation I was affiliated with and purported to find that this was not in dispute. But it was and is in dispute. In my letter of response I denied that I was either a member or supporter of LAW. You have produced no evidence to establish ‘affiliation’ or that the letter constitutes support for that organisation. All my name under the letter shows is support for the contents of the letter.3. You have reached conclusions of fact without any reasonable justification and without considering my evidence at an oral hearing.4. You have failed to take into account that the letter was dated January 2020 and that the date of proscription of LAW was July 2021 so that LAW was not proscribed at the time I signed the letter. This is clearly a breach of natural justice.Graham Bash
I share the anger at the Labour Part decision and agree entirely with
Graham Bash’s letter – in particular:
“4. You have failed to take into account that the letter was dated January 2020 and that the date of proscription of LAW was July 2021 so that LAW was not proscribed at the time I signed the letter. This is clearly a breach of natural justice.”
However the current Labour party Rules (se below) are such that
Natural Justice is not adhered to in the case of expulsions –
so they can – effectively – expel who they wish to .. is how I would interpret
this admission.
What they have not taken into account is whether this Labour Party “Law”
(or lack of it) takes into account the third Nolan Principle of Public Life:
‘Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, FAIRLY** and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.’
(Upper case is my addition.)
I doubt if this Nolan Principle differentiates between between “Natural Law’
and what most people would regard as “fairness’ ..
******** new rule introduced in 2022 *************
Rule C2.I.4.D/P14)
D. Neither the principles of natural justice nor the provisions of fairness in Chapter 2, Clause II.8 shall apply to the termination of Party membership pursuant to Chapter 2, Clauses I.4.A and C.
LABOUR’S RULE BOOK 2022
As Graham will recall, I was one of the plaintiffs in the first of the 1986 High Court cases which confirmed that the Labour Party as an unincorporated association was obliged to apply natural justice to punitive suspensions or expulsions, in line with the common law as established in Lewis vs Heffer (1978). These cases resulted in the establishment of the NCC that same year in order to make the party’s disciplinary procedures lawful by compliance with natural justice, or at least go through the motions of natural justice. The purported role of the NCC in compliance with natural justice was further confirmed in Green vs Labour Party (1991) when the NEC in its submissions stated that a suspended member “will of course have their rights under the rules governing matters referred to the NCC, which are designed to ensure fairness and compliance with the rules of natural justice”. Of course, this did not prevent the NCC from in fact from being in practise a kangaroo court. Nevertheless, the Labour Party remains obliged in common law to apply natural justice, so that its claim in the 2022 Rule C2.I.4.D/P14 that “neither the principles of natural justice nor the provisions of fairness in Chapter 2, Clause II.8 shall apply to the termination of Party membership” is almost certainly unlawful. As far as I know the principles of natural justice confirmed in 1986 have not been tested in a court during the current witch-hunt. Perhaps Graham and JVL might consider this?
Thank you Neil – as you probably know, we have pursued legal action but had a disappointing outcome to the LA4J case. However, we continue to work with lawyers and make what inraods we can. Labour’s legal status generally means that if the members agree to change the rules then, so long as it is acting within the law, it can do these things.
I’m still waiting for even an acknowledgement of my appeal letter – it’ now been 18 months. I’ve submitted 2 formal complaints about this – still no reply or acknowledgement. However it didn’t stop the LP from collecting subs from my bank account which after complaining through the bank, have been refunded with no apology forthcoming!
But more worrying is the number of Labour International LI) Exec members who have been expelled – 11 of them this time round. The LILA purge started slowly, generally around the run-up to the exec elections which for us is 2-yearly . In 2019-21 6 LILA exec members were expelled. This year – LI exec election year, 11 have been expelled, throwing the exec into complete chaos. So a total of 16 since 2020. Every single LILA candidate for this year’s election were sent investigation letters and now the expulsion letters are drifting through, many of them for belonging to LILA -which isn’t a proscribed group. Those that have heard have been expelled The timing of these is a clear evidence that the complaints have been submitted by a particularly toxic group of LTW LI members with insider knowledge and a close association with Luke Akehurst, our NEC “minder” because we are outside the regional struture. Thus clearly factional and also bullying. Akehurst even let it drop that he often sits on the expulsion committees.
My two cents worth, Graham Bash is fortunate to be disassociated from the LP, It would take a brave fellow to describe the LP so discredited are they.
If the Starmer leadership devoted as much energy and time to fighting the Tory Party and its brutal policies as it does against the activist left within the Labour Party, it would present a meaningful alternative to Conservative politics. Instead it is obsessed with eliminating any residue of the forces that built the Labour while Corbyn was Party leader.
The shameless toadies formally responsible for such decisions normally take great care to preserve their anonymity, to save themselves from possible future opprobrium; so not only are panel members anonymous but almost certainly individual votes are not recorded. However in the present case case the cover of the toadies has been unintentionally weakened by the disclosure that this appalling decision was made unanimously. So anyone who was a member of that appeal panel is ipso facto a thoroughly unscrupulous individual.
Now in the internet age the membership of this panel is certain to be revealed in the course of time. So, dear toadies, if I may for a moment address you as your counsellor with a helpful suggestion, it is open to any one of you to save your future reputation by being the first to reveal the names of the other panel members and claim that you really disagreed with the decision, but were put under intolerable pressure by the other panel members to agree to it. That way we will all benefit by your heroic whistleblowing – and I am quite sure that such an act will not violate any of your personal principles.
At least Graham got a reply. I lodged an appeal against my expulsion at about the same time and still have heard nothing.
I wonder, however, at the possibility of legally challenging the NEC’s definition of “supporter”.
In my case the definition of the word seems to include anyone protesting at LAW’s proscription, since I was not a member of LAW, hadn’t signed any open letter, attended any of its meetings or distributed any of its material.
I was considered a “supporter” by virtue of moving a resolution at my CLP protesting at LAW’s proscription on the grounds of alleged antisemitism – this after responding to an earlier Notice of Investigation which focussed on my own alleged antisemitism, about which nothing more was heard.
Basically decisions are reached on basis of the subjective views of an anonymous panel of people ignoring and/or twisting facts to their liking as well as “legitimising” it by reference to a rule hastily made up in 2022. In short, we don’t want you and any means justifies the outcome. Starmer’s outfit really is a rear-end tragedy.
Watched the launch of Starmer’s Five new Pledges on Newsnight last night, still wondering about the ten broken ones during his leadership campaign and not even pressed about it by the interviewer. Greetings, solidarity and best wishes to all those unjustly victimised by this Starmer regime. Fresh start, new beginnings Graham.
We had a resurgence of similar events in very early 1970s or late 1960s when teachers were barred from teaching for supporting progressive left wing groups or “god forbid” being members of the Deutsche Kommunist Party (DKP). However, protests and support from Human rights groups put a stop to it.
Labour under starmer and co is not Labour any longer. It is on a very dodgy path, and I am worried about things getting worse, should he ever get the pm’s job, considering that, according to a statement by one of his underlings, present actions are seen as a practice run for when he is PM.
A Kangaroo Court, ever there was one.
A warning and an indication of the vindictive, undemocratic, authoritarian government under Starmer, totally lacking in natural justice, that the U.K. can expect should a Starmer led Labour Party win the election – no different from the Tories.
Having recently been expelled myself I am planning an appeal. However reading this thread leads me to conclude that it is almost certainly pointless
12 candidates for the Labour International CLP exec committee elections in April have now been expelled in the last month. They are all members of LI Left Alliance – LILA -, and some of them have be expelled for belonging to LILA even though it is not a proscribed group. 5 were were expelled around the date of the 2021 exec elections, making a total of 17 in less than 3 years.
Solidarity with Graham Bash. I note and agree with Graham that the decision against him is a breach of natural justice. Starmer and his clique care not one jot for natural justice, so much for the alleged “human rights lawyer” its BS. I don’t believe he is fit to wipe Graham’s boots never mind run the Labour party. Unsurprisingly it has been revealed that Starmer hates environmentalists who he calls “tree huggers”. From his expulsion of Graham Bash we can conclude he hates socialists and Jews too. Since Starmer became Labour leader more Jews have been expelled from the Labour party than under any previous Labour leader, can someone remind me of a fitting term for action that disproportionately targets Jewish people negatively ?
The Labour Party is corrupted. I will no longer vote labour
I had the misfortune to be fingered by ‘Labour Against Antisemitism’ as one of 11 notorious antisemites that they supplied to the BoD which was then passed to Starmer as some kind of loyalty test. My real crime? Being among a group winning an executive election in Labour International. One of the opponents in Labour International was part of this nasty little grouplet so the rubbish began immediately.
During my time on the executive we pursued an antisemitic Himmler lover through the Labour Party’s disputes procedure. It took two years and the disappearance of Ian McNicol for the case to be acted upon. You can read the gruesome details in the ‘Leaked Report’.
During my case and the legal case that followed the Labour Party’s lawyers slipped a copy of the NEC subcommittee minutes to me.
It was hilarious. They couldn’t find enough evidence after trawling through four years of Facebook and Twitter so they started looking for ‘aggravating circumstances’. This include ‘Keir needs this.’
In the end, the NCC appeal substituted a penalty of ‘membership cancellation’ for a period of eighteen months instead of outright expulsion.
When they were asked which rule allowed ‘cancellation’ in place of expulsion they clammed up and told us to contact the Labour Party law firm.
Since then the Kafka novel has developed: now you can be auto excluded for being a member of an LI left caucus that isn’t even proscribed.