Kim Mayo
Professional Biography
Kim joined Essex County Council in May 2002 as a member of the Advocacy Team, and was appointed as the Paralegal Team Supervisor in May 2007, before qualifying as a solicitor in 2010.
During her time at Essex County Council Kim has undertaken a range of criminal and civil litigation work, as well as dealing with a variety of other areas, undertaking a range of advocacy before the Magistrates and County Court and Employment Tribunal.
Relevant Work Experience
Criminal Litigation
All District Council prosecutions including benefit fraud, fly tipping, food hygiene, and noise abatement as well as Trading Standards prosecutions including underage sales, infringements under trade mark legislation and applications under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Prosecutions on behalf of the education department for failing to ensure regular school attendance and other Local Authority prosecutions.
Civil Litigation
Kim has been involved in a variety of civil litigation including:
- Judicial Reviews: including a challenge to the Council's decision to close all its residential children's homes in Essex, brought on behalf of the children residing at a number of the homes and a challenge to the Council's decision to instigate possession proceedings to remove Gypsy/Travellers from unauthorised encampments within Essex.
- Possession Hearings
- Procurement Challenges
- Commercial litigation
- Bankruptcy hearings
- Licensing applications and reviews
- Debt recovery and s.222 injunctions
- the Government led initiative 'Building Schools for the Future'; the largest single capital investment programme in 50 years.
- Transformation of Schools within Essex to Academies.
- Provision of IT to the County Council in partnership arrangements.
- A substantial review of the Council's Constitution, policies and delegations and development of a Code of Corporate Governance;
- Establishing joint committees with districts and boroughs within Essex for the provision of on street parking and unauthorised encampments, and working with Essex Fire & Rescue Service to establish a Joint Committee for the provision of emergency planning.
Practice Areas
Panels
- Consulting Editorial Board
- Contributing Author
2 Contributions by Kim Mayo
PRACTICE NOTES
Interpreting and Clarifying FOI Requests: Ambiguity, Duty to Provide Advice and Assistance, and Time Limits under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Reading a request objectively
Where a request made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000) is expressed plainly and without ambiguity, the receiving public authority has 20 days to supply the information sought. As a rule, there is no duty to hunt for alternative constructions of a straightforward request, or to consider material that falls outside its scope (see Adedeji v Information Commissioner). However, if the wording is unclear, for example:
more than one meaning can reasonably be taken, or
on reviewing any context provided, the wording proves ambiguous
FIA 2000 gives a public authority a means to seek clarification so it can identify and locate the information requested. In reading a request objectively, an authority should be careful to:
avoid overlooking ambiguity:
in Berend v Information Commissioner and London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, the authority read ‘all working papers and documents attached to Agendas’ as only working papers attached to agendas, missing an alternative meaning—the authority was in breach of FIA 2000 as it failed to seek clarification
adopt a real-world interpretation:
in Greenwood v Information...
Public Law
PRACTICE NOTES
Public interest test: assessing ‘safe space’ and ‘chilling effect’ arguments under FOIA 2000 ss 35–36 and EIR 2004 reg 12, with case law and ICO guidance
Since the arrival of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR 2004), SI 2004/3391, commentators have argued that releasing information risks curbing candid and open policy debate within public authorities. Claims of a chilling effect on discussion, and the necessity of a safe space for debate, are usually presented within the public interest considerations advanced by authorities seeking to apply a qualified exemption to an information request. Key illustrations are FIA 2000, s 35 (formulations of government policy, etc), FIA 2000, s 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and EIR 2004, reg 12(4)(d) and (e) (exceptions to the duty to disclose environmental information). Both safe space and chilling effect arguments concentrate on the need to shield internal deliberation and the decision-making process.
What is meant by a ‘chilling effect’ and by ‘safe space’?
Public authorities have contended that, if required to reveal details of internal discussions, the free and frank exchange needed to develop policy in future would be inhibited or ‘chilled’. It is suggested that exposing such discussions would harm the quality of advice given in future and lead...
Public Law
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
