High Court grants claimant permission for judicial review over 2023 council meeting question ban

In Affleck v The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead [2026] EWHC 1137 (Admin) (15 May 2026), Mr Justice MacDonald found it arguable that the restriction disproportionately interfered with John Affleck’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The claimant was subjected to sexual abuse as a child while living at a children’s home owned by Berkshire County Council, the predecessor authority to the defendant council.

The judicial review challenge arises from a dispute over a settlement agreement reached between the county council and a former care home employee following civil claims brought against the authority in relation to historic abuse at the home.

The claimant believes that the settlement agreement prevented information relating to the abuse allegations from being disclosed during subsequent criminal proceedings involving that employee.

Affleck had presented his accusations at a number of council meetings and in a series of emails to council members and officers.

The council eventually moved to block him from asking an oral supplementary question at a meeting in July 2023, stating that it had a duty of care to protect its staff from harm.

The local authority pointed to a number of instances leading up to the decision in which it claimed that Affleck had attended meetings and had become agitated and aggressive.

It also claimed he became agitated and aggressive during a meeting with Windsor & Maidenhead’s Monitoring Officer, Emma Duncan, and its Head of Law and Governance, Elaine Fiona Browne, that was held to allow him to inspect the settlement agreement.

In a claim form submitted in January 2024, Affleck argued that the council’s refusal to allow him his question constituted interference with his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.

His application was refused in March 2026 by Andrew Burns KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, who determined that the claim was not arguable because Article 10 of the ECHR is a qualified right and the defendant had grounds for restricting that qualified right.

Affleck later applied for a renewal hearing.

At the renewal hearing, the council argued that the claim was brought out of time, with the decision having been made on 21 July 2023 and the claim having been issued six months later on 3 January 2024.

MacDonald J said there was no dispute that the claim was out of time.

He added: "Section 7(5) of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides for a one-year time limit. However, that limit is expressed to be 'subject to any rule imposing a stricter time limit in relation to the procedure in question'...."

The judge noted that the rule of court which has the effect of limiting the time within which an application for judicial review may be made is r. 54.5(1) of the CPR, which provides:

"(1) The claim form must be filed –

(a) promptly; and

(b) in any event not later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose."

Mr Justice MacDonald highlighted the discretion to extend the time limit under rule 3.1(2)(a) of the CPR.

The High Court judge said there should be “strict adherence to the time limits contained in the rules in the context of judicial review”, but added that “it is clear that the Claimant thought a different route for claiming relief applied”.

He added: “Albeit incorrect, he issued that claim within the period applicable to it. The issues raised by the Claimant's claim are of considerable importance, concerning as they do the question of freedom of political speech and the circumstances in which it may legitimately be circumscribed in light of the speaker's conduct. In circumstances where the claim concerns political speech, the claim does raise broader issues of public interest."

He later added: “In circumstances where I am satisfied that permission for judicial review should be granted, I refrain from commenting in any detail regarding the Claimant's claim.

“I am satisfied that it is arguable, in the context of the very high level of protection afforded to political speech and having regard to the authorities on criticism of those who hold office and who are responsible for public administration, that the conduct of the Claimant in becoming agitated and aggressive in his speech at council meetings, of corresponding in extensive, pejorative and potentially defamatory terms with elected representatives and officials and of making serious allegations of misconduct against members of the council, was not sufficient justification for preventing him asking an oral question in person or remotely at the council meeting on 25 July 2023.

“It is, in my judgment, arguable with a realistic prospect of success that the Defendant's refusal to allow the Claimant his supplementary oral question, in person or via a remote video link, constituted a disproportionate interference in the Claimant's right to freedom of expression under Art 10. Accordingly, permission for judicial review is granted.”

Adam Carey