Leonard Johnson's marathon appearance at Bridge Park hearing and more to come tomorrow

The day started with a brief conversation about  Counsel and some court room staff appeared now wearing facebooks.  Apparently guidance was issued last on Friday.  The Judge decided he was sufficiently social distanced not to have to wear one!  The combination of an echo on the sound and the masks made it very hard to hear properly but that was eventually remedied.

Mr Cottle for the defendants said that he was 'parking' the possible amendment to change the pleading.  The change appears to be switching from a claim that HPCC and successor organisations owned the property, to one that they were granted a lease that stipulated an option to eventually buy the freehold, with the expectation that they would do so. The legal point being argued  is whether that is sufficient for them to be deemed to have an interest in the land.

After Mr Cottle detailed issues around the plea the Judge said, 'We now know what the point is, whether it's a good one or not...'

The first and only witness today was Leonard Johnson recognised as the young man in 1981 who spearheaded the campaign for the Harlesden/Stonebridge community to have a physical base of its own at the Stonebridge Bus Depot site from which  they would run a community organisation providing a range of activities for the black community of the area.  His close cross-examination, with three breaks, lasted all day and will resume tomorrow.

Ms Holland, Counsel for Brent went straight into the issue of ownership of the site producing a 1985 document  about the Steering Group, which Johnson has signed, that she claimed showed the council owned all the site.  She said that if HPCC had an interest in the property it would have stated so in the document.

Mr Johnson said that this was the only way, the council had told them (in 1982) that HPCC couldn't sign because they were not incorporated. Holland said the council had by then owned it for 3 years. By signing it Johnson had acknowledged that the council had ownership.

Johnson said that perhaps they had been naive at the time. 'If we knew we would have no rights we wouldn't have signed.  The council was a legal entitiy and we were not.  The council had come on board saying, we wil work with you and get the garage.'

Ms Holland asked if Johnson had been a director of the Steering Group all the way through. He responded that he had resigned in 1991 and 1992 and for the last time in 1994.  He had done this at a public meeting of about 400 people when he felt his character was being assassinated. The Kilburn Times has asked, 'Was he pushed or did he jump?'  He had resigned for the good of the community so the project could continue.

Mr Johnson said that a councillor has been elected to the Steering Group board and was one of those who attacked him, 'He was a racist and slandered me.'  After that he had not been involved with the steering group but the HPCC still had a majority on the board. He was involved in other HPCC projects in the community.

There was then a discussion about whether the board had professional legal advice and whether the adviser was experienced in property law.  Johnson said, 'Brent had top lawyers, we couldn't afford that.'

HPCC  had legal advice over management  training, business units and contracts.

Ms Holland then put it to Johnson that if HPCC had a legal interest in the property the adviser would have raised it. He replied that it wa raised many times. 'The lease and the freehold had been spoken about and we wrote into the lease that we had an option to purchase - first priority as we had got the majority of the funds.'  Holland said if there was some entitlement to the building, the legal adviser would have raised it and it would be documented.

Mr Johnson claimed it was documented. The old campaign had been about getting the building. 'I was happy getting the money for the building, the staff and getting it up and running.  Brent had to take control as we were unincorporated but we always believed we owned the building.'

Ms Holland said 'You have changed your case very recently and very substantially, It is an extensive change in the last few days.  The claim throughout was that you [HPCC?] were the sole beneficiary but you now claim that HPCC would have the lease and one day have an option to buy the freehold.'


Mr Johnson said, 'All I am saying is that the council were going to get the project for us and after a while they wanted their money back. Bridge Park is unique - it is not just a leisure centre.'

Holland then referred to Mr Johnson's Witness Statement  which she said made no reference to an option to buy. It argued that the defendants owned the entire beneficial interest in the property. 'You made a statement that what you said was true. The claim was that you were the owner of the freehold. You never claimed in the statement that you had an option to buy the freehold. This was nine months after you claimed to register the restriction. Did you care if it was true?'

Johnson: 'It's true.'

Ms Holland referred to a 1988 Brent Council Policy and Resources report that stated the project had dropped the request to purchase the freehold 'for the time being.'  Johnson said he didn't remember it.

Holland said there had been no reference to any request on option to buy until 1986 and then dropped in 1988. It was then not raised again until June 2020. She told Johnson that the reference in his evidence was not until June 2020.  It had never been raised until then and so the claim had no credibility.

Mr Johnson said 'for the time being' may have been due to legal work that needed to be done of Brent Council finances,

Challenged that if there had been an option it would have been raised frequently. Johnson said it had been raised frequently.  'We went along with it because at the time the council was working with us. All along we felt we owned the property.  I know in my heart we weren't working for the council - we were working for the community.'

Ms Holland returned to the issue that June 2020 was the first time the claim had been made.  Johnson said, '2020 was when we had to build our case.' Holland pressed the point that he hadn't  been involved in Bridge Park since 1992 - the council had started consultation about it in 2013.  'You had never put in a claim  in all those years.'

Johnson answered tht he had only been engaged with the HPCC. He was called back when the council wanted to sell the land. 'The leader of the Conservative Party said, "You need to get back" '
There had been a meeting about the future of Bridge Park called by Cllr Butt (Leader of Brent Council,  attended by Dawn Butler MP (Brent Central), and he had refused what they offered.

There was further discussion about Johnson's involvement later when and Johnson said he was unwell and in hospital so he couldn't ger involved, the extent of his knowledge was via one or two individuals. He was called back when Bridge Park was threated.

Holland challenged that he was underplaying his involvement and had more knowledge that he was saying. Johnson denied that this was the case.

Speaking about the intial campaign Leonard Johnson said, 'We saw ourselves as the oweners.  As young boys we had to have ownership but it was in trust until we got older and more mature.  Brent were taking care of our part in the project and waiting for us to mature.  We employed professional staff but everyone trained up an apprentice to take over.'

Ms Holland said that all documentation since the time of acquisition indicated that all parties were proceeding on the understanding that the council acquired the property.  Johnson replied, 'We were unincorporated, people off the street, we couldn't buy it. The council had to do it for us. It was only after we stopped the riots that the council said, "How can we support you?" and we said they could help us get the bus garage.'

When Holland said that ownership was always going to be with the council, Johnson replied that if that had been the case 'we would have had nothing to do with it.'

Referring to the document about the project which had a preface signed by Johnson, Holland said it stated that Brent Council would buy the property and HPCC would manage it: management is different from ownership.  Mr Johnson said in the long-term the project would be self-financing and they were committed to buying the freehold. In the short-term it need an injection of hard cash. 'We were always commited to enggaing with the council. They were our main partners.'

Holland reiterated, 'It is clear ownership and acquisition was with the council and the project was managed by HPCC.'

Johnson  said he totally disagreed. Responding to the Judge he said the document had been drafted by Brent Council. Holland pointed out the document made it clear  it had been drafted with the assistance of the HPCC. There had been a distinction from the start between ownership and management. In the short-term with HPCC and then with the community co-operative.

Johnson retorted, 'No way we were prepared to just manage for Brent Council, 'manage' doesn't mean we didn't see ourselves as owning it.

In a long section dealing with the sale by LT of the bus garage and whether it had been at a discounted rate, Johnson said, 'The council couldn't have bought it for themselves. The council had no use for it. We had the vision.'  Holland quoted evidence that there had been 16 other conditional offers for the bus garage - it hadn't been taken off the market as Johnson claimed.

At this point Johnson made a mention of the Covenant on the sale which protected BPCC's interests in the community development and was inserted at the instigation of the GLC. (1)

There had been problem regarding planning permisison for other applications but LT constitutionally had to realise the market value and that, according to Holland, was what happened.

After the lunch break Ms Holland asked Mr Johnson complex questions about the latest judgment in the case, repossession and circumstances around the lease, leading him to exclaim, 'To be honest I haven't a clue what you're talking about!'

Johnson said they were all volunteers, working for the community 'out of the heart, not for income: that's our culture.'  Going back to 1981 he said the vision was self-sufficiency, 'developing our own economy, our own sustainability. We made clear we wanted nothing to do with the council but the council came to us, they literally had to beg us. How did you stop the riots?  They were mesmerised. We didn't want the council to control us. We wanted them to recognise that we had talent.  They got involved with us - not us with them. We were going for bus garage purchase before they even knew. we were going for it. We wrote up plans via community involvement we met with Harlesden Forum, Stonebridge Forum, Chalkhill.  I said [to the council], ' Let's try and do something with us. Be fair to us. Not bully us. The council has no claim whatsoever in terms of Bridge Park.'

Challenged that it had been Brent Council land from the start Mr Johnson said. 'No. The Urban Programme, GLC, only came on board because of HPCC.  Brent knew it was the only way to get the money.' He said he had got people on board, talked to Chair of Wimpey and got the car park surfaced free: 'Wasn't that money?'

The  Judge suggsted a 10 minute break. Johnson apologised for his passion.

On resumption Ms Holland said that there was absolutely no refernce in any of the documents to the council gifting the land to the HPCC.   In response Mr Johnson claimed that the document said they could eventually purchase the freehold. 'I don't believe at any time Brent owned the land. They bought it, yes, if you are saying that because their names are on it.'

He cited Lord Young's support for the project and HPCC's invitation to Prince Charles to open the building and his putting him on th Prince's Trust.

Holland put it to Johnson that he had said the only reason HPCC was not on the documentation was because they were unincorporated but all documents showed it was Brent property and it was they who received the  grant funding. Johnson responded that if it hadn't been for the HPCC Brent wouldn't have got the funding.  'It is absolutely clear in all the documents. We are named in the acquisition of the bus garage. Named on all the documents.  We made a presentation to the council: "You are the problem. Let us have have an economical foundation for our community. Others have something. We are at the bottom of the pit."  They unanimously agreed. We wanted an asset, a stake, to run businesses.'

The Judge asked, 'Isn't running a business an asset?'

Leonard Johnson replied, 'We were the only ones who didn't have an asset. We told people we are the owners.'

Ms Holland said that if the intention was for HPCC to be the owners they would be named in the documents.  Johnson replied that this was because Brent council was 'indulging in skulduggery and put a racist on the board.'  In answer to a further question he  said that the council knew what they were up to: 'get HPCC to get the asset. Then when they've got it, get rid of it for themselves.'

Holland pointed out that it was for the community, not for HPCC,

Mr Johnson replied that HPCC represented the community. They were the only organisation that linked with everyone. The only organisation that could get 1,000 people into Brent Town Hall to hear his report.

Holland pursued the point saying, 'You were a significant person - you were not the community.  The council does have a role in community - you do not.'

Johnson said that the recent meeting about Bridge Park achieved 1,200 people at three week's notice.

The next exchange covered previous ground over sources of funding and whether it went to the council or HPCC. Holland suggested that HPCC was only named on the Urban Aid documentation because the council had to refer to social needs to get the grant. Mr Johnson said,' I want to work with the council but I don't need them to take our assets away.  Brent locked themselves into a corner with GMH. Why didn't they come to use for help?  We want to work with them.'

Ms Holland suggested that community entity some time acquring the property was just a hope.

Johnson, 'No, it was a belief. We thought the council would make sure we got it.'

Holland, 'An aspiration, not an entitlement.'

Johnson, 'Our community don't see that - the opposite.'

Holland then quoted Leonard Johnson's Witness Statement in which he used 'aspiration' to hold the property. This had also been the word used by council witnesses.

Johnson responded that the CEO at the time had said there was no objection in principle to them acquiring the freehold. They couldn't at the time until the whole organisation had been trained up to be professional.   He said they wanted to be in a position to pay the council back.

Johnson said that they had an accountant for the details of the grants, 'I opened the door to the funders.'

Holland pointed out that there had been no promise or assurances over HPCC acquisition. Just because it was mentioned  it didn't mean they would definitely get the freehold.

Johnson said that there had been assurances at a council meeting. The witnesses were being economical with the truth.  These people were there.  We looked at ourselves in terms of Watt County, we had a man come over from there. If they were telling the truth, they would say they agreed that HPCC would get the freehold.'

Ms Holland argued that if HPCC had an interest in the property they would not have needed a license to occupy. Johnson resplied that this was just a management procedure to make sure they were covered by insurance.

He added, 'The community are saying the council sold Bridge Park to an off-shore company and they are absolutely livid about it.'

(1) Brent Council applied to the GLC successor body, Bromley Council, for removal of the Covenant and this was granted.

Day 3- Brent Council v Bridge Park

Much of today's cross-examination of witnesses from the Brent Council of the 1980s appeared inconclusive. Counsel for Bridge Park campaign seemed to shift the grounds on which they based their claim for an interest in the site, which would mean Brent Council could not dispose of it without further neogtoiation.

Initially the case appeared to be that the monies raised by the steering group and succeeding organisation meant that they had an interest as those funds contributed to the acquisition of the land at the former bus depot.  Latterly the argument seemed to be that an option to buy out Brent Council's share of the freehold gave them an interest.

At the end of today's hearing Counsel for Brent Council and the Judge sought clarity on the grounds on which the case was being argued by Bridge Park's Counsel. They will return to the issue tomorrow morning.

The parade of ex-Brent Council officers began with Meredith Thomson, Solicitor, who could not say whether Brent Council was amenable to a clause in the lease on Bridge Park giving the Steering Group/Harlesden Peoples Community Cooperative (HPCC)  an option to buy out Brent's share of the freehold of the site.  Thomson said she did not deal with HPCC, just the limited company that was wound up. The Steering Group was not the the body that would hold the asset.

Next up was George Benham, Director of Education at the time, and later CEO.  He confirmed that he had invited businesses to get involved in Bridge Park and had organised training sessions for headteachers there as well as getting involved in Itec. He recognised the strength of community involvement and said he was very much aware of the emotional attachment the community had to Bridge Park.

Charles Wood, another ex-CEO in Brent, spoke about Brent Council's concern that funds were properly accounted for. Brent Council funded Bridge Park at £350k a year, had to finance an over-draft of £130k, and rates were waived. A financial adviser was put in to assist them.  Counsel for Bridge Park said that a Deloittes report recommended changes that were not implemented by the council.  They had recommended the granting of a long lease at Bridge Park to ensure stability. Wood argued that it was the organisation that did not implement the recommendations but the council had followed the recommendation to continue to fund the project.

Counsel said that Deloittes had recommended funding beyond 1982. Wood responded that the council could not accept that as the situation had deteriorated and confidence reduced. The situation regarding the finances (as set out above) could not be allowed to continue. The organisation had not met recommendations regarding wider community involvement, better financial controls and provision of a range of services.  By that time the Deloittes recommendation was out of date.

Wood accepted that Brent Council had no objection in principle to HPCC having a long term aim of buying out the council's share of the freehold but given financial constraints of the time that was something for the future.   They never came back to it as far as Wood could recollect. Counsel put it to Wood that Leonard Johnson had refused to sign the lease because it did not contain a buy-out option. Wood said that there may have been other reasons for him not to sign.

Counsel then asked Wood about a 1992 report about the implications of discontinuation of the project and whether the council would have a £700k liability to pay funds back to the London Residuary Body (LRB) responsible for the GLC assets after abolition. Wood couldn't recall what was said at the time and what legal advice had been given but it was a fair point that the LRB would not have hesitated to get the money back.  The GLC had set out the covenant that this was council land to be managed on behalf of the community.

Wood said that the council wanted the project to be community led and community run, but not by the group currently running it. It was not ending the use of the centre.  He 'imagined' that the council stance was not breaking the covenant but continuing  the work with a different group.

Wood stated that he had worked for Brent for 9 years from 1986 and in that time no one from the group or community had raised the matter of their right to purchase the freehold.  If there had been a prior commitment it would have come back to him. He confirmed that there had been no discussion of the terms of a buy-out and an option of a buy-out only being included in the lease for a new group - 'not Mr Johnson's.' Wood said this was not what was important at the time.

The main issue was the need for the  involvement of the wider community and the group's determination to keep  control. When CEO he had seen that this was a fantastic group of young people and the council, which had reputational problems, was a great supporter of the project.  In 1982 there was a desire to support the setting up of local businesses at the centre and everyone shared the enthusiasm.  The Sports Council, London Marathon, private funding and fund-raising all contributed.

Counsel suggested that HPCC had played a 'huge role' in fundraising. Wood responded that HPCC and Brent Council had both played an important role - 'the two together.' Leonard Johnson was very charismatic. Almost as an aside, Wood stated that the organisation could over-estimate its impact and that Johnson's claim that there had been a rival offer for the bus depot of £3m was wrong -'there wasn't an offer.' Wood agreed that the project would not have happened without HPCC's actions, their credibility at the time and the support they had.

Counsel, quoting a letter sent by Head of Housing, Mr McQueen, to the Housing Action Trust (HAT) on Stonebridge, said that it conveyed a recognition that Bridge Park belonged to the community and not to Brent Council. Charles Wood responded that the council had made it clear that it was important that Bridge Park remained independent, was run by a wider group and provided services.

There was a further exchange about an internal audit report on Bridge Park. Wood said that it did what auditors do, investigate and report their findings. Counsel maintained that the findings were untested and therefore unfair.

Asked by Counsel about his not arranging a meeting with Mr Johnso when he visited Bridge Park. Wood said he had gone there with a  community worker and had been dismayed by the lack of activity there. He hadn't planned to visit Mr Johnson.

Wood reiterated that the withdrawal of the grant had been based on a failure to involve the wider community, failure to improve financial management and failure to provide the intended services.  As non-political CEO he had made the recommendation but the decision was a political one made by the council committee. Counsel suggsted that they would not have made that decision if they knew they had a potential liability to pay £700m to the GLC.

The Judge pointed out that the liability would depend on whether a project continued to be run from the premises.

There was then an exchange between the Judge and both Counsel. The Judge said that to be honest he was finding it hard to follow where the Bridge Park Counsel was going with his case.  Counsel pointed out that there was a difference between purchasing the freehold and getting the option to buy the freehold.  Counsel for Brent Council said  that public funding was at the heart of the matter and in law the defendants were not able to have an interest in the land.

That discussion will continue tomorrow before Brent Council Counsel cross-examines.

Day 2 - Brent Council v Bridge Park

The cross-examination of ex Brent Council Leader Thomas Bryson continued when the Court resumed this morning. Bridge Park's Counsel was trying to establish that the HPCC (Harlesden People's Community Co-operative) had the aim of eventually buying the freehold of the former bus depot site.  Bryson said that ownership of the land had not been discussed at presentations on the project. It was a partnership whereby both the Council and HPCC wanted it for the community. He knew of it as a long-term aim but did not sign up to it. He did not remember the purchase of the freehold by HPCC becoming a factor in any discussion.

The financial assistance had been for the HPCC and Brent Council was the conduit.  Asked about a note on the financial risk involved Bryson  said that any scheme had risks  - it was a fact of life - but concern was not expressed at any presentation. It involved a great amount of money without a great deal of experience in those proposing to run it. He assumed the council was satisfied with the organisation but couldn't remember.

Bryson agreed with the proposition that Stonebridge and the local area remained quiet because of the effects of the community project.  He said ownership of the freehold remained with the council, if that was to change there would have to be a buy out,

The next witness was Carolyn Downs, Brent Council's current Chief Executive. Having worked on the Inner Urban Programme for Haringey Council she said her understanding was that voluntary organisations worked with LAs in partnership and that the property never belonged to anyone but the council. Asked if the Department of the Environment would  judge whether monies went to private organisations, she that in the HPCC case it didn't. Brent couldn't buy the bus garage on its own but was expected to provide matched funding. Money was provided to purchase the asset and HPCC took the responsibility for running it.

Downs did not accept that Brent Council was merely a conduit for the cash - all Inner Urban Programmes had sponsors outside the council.  Challenged by Counsel that if HPCC had not applied the council would not be in the possession of the land, Downs said this was true of all Urban Programmes - everything the council does is for the benefit of the community. Since she had been employed by the council she had never regarded Bridge Park as a charitable asset,

On the issue of consultation with the community Downs said the council had employed an independent external company to consult with the community. Counsel quoted her 2017 statement that Brent Council was not going to negotiate with Brdige Park campaigners over the land ownership because there was nothing to negotiate about. Downs responded that the council had made numerous attempts to meet with the defendants.

Since 2013 plans had been changed to provide a larger facility in response to the community feedback.  Profits from the scheme would be invested locally, however litigation had halted a lot of the negotiations taking place. The £80m project had been on the point of signing. Counsel asked how much flexibility had GMH holdings shown over provision of business units and function rooms in the facility, At this point a council officer intervened to make a point about commercial confidentiality.  Counsel asked if it was possible to take the community on board via the charity but Downs said she could not speak for GMH.

Counsel suggested that Brent Council was taking a facility away from the community. Downs responded that this was not true - the community were getting a modern, enhanced facility and the council was remaining true to the Bridge Park legacy.

Questioned over demographic changes Downs said that Brent Council's job was to serve the community as it is now - not as it was in 1981.  Documents at the time had expressed concern that HPCC did not reflect the whole of the community.

Asked if it would have been possible for Brent Council to grant HPCC an interest in the land, Downs said, 'Yes, but it didn't.'

The next witness was Arthur Boulter (apologies if I did not get the spelling right - the name was not displayed on Skype) who is now 91 and was Director of Finance in Brent Council in 1981 having started with the borough in 1976.

Counsel asked Boulter about whether HPCC had obtained charitable status at the time. He said he wasn't involved in any discussion about that but if it had been a charitable trust it would have had to be kept separate in accounts otherwise it would have been picked up by the District Auditor.

He said Bridge Park was a corporate asset owened by the London Borough of Brent.  There was no discussion of the land being purchasd for charitable purposes. He dealt with the finances rather than the legal side, his job was to get the money.  Asked if Urban Aid was financial assistance for HPCC he said, 'No never! It was an application made by Brent, for Brent and for the purposes of Brent.'

Counsel asked if the money had to be passed on to HPCC. Boulter said that it was entirely within Brent Council. HPCC were not able to apply for it themselves. When Counsel suggested, 'They had to give it to HPCC. It was conditional that it went to HPCC.' Boulter said firmly, 'I don't agree.'

Urban Aid was directed at specific projects, in this case the purchase of the bus depot. Brent Council would have found it difficult to find the resources for the alternative course of action of buying the depot itself. Boulter said the facts were that Urban Aid was applied for and the council had got it along with money fro the GLC and other grants.

Boulter said that HPCC were extremely helpful in helping get Urban Aid for the council but he would not say that they had played a leading role. Everyone at the time wanted to promote harmony. Given the needs of the time it was extremely likely that Brent would have got the money with our without HPCC, although he acknowledged their contribution. He wasn;t aware the HPCC wanted to buy the freehold.

Boulter disageed with Counsel that this was an HPCC project, it was also Brent Council's whose aim was to benefit all the community. He said, I do not agree the bus garage was bought because of the assitance if HPCC, it was with their assistance.

The Judge asked if there was an obligation to pay back the 25%  required by Urban Aid; did Brent ever think to recover that from HPCC. Boulter said there was no intention of recocovering the funds but if HPCC had acquired the freehold the money would have come back to Brent. The GLC and other grant money would also have had to be repaid.

Merle Abbott (Amory) previously leader of Brent Council was the next witness.  She was elected for Stonebridge ward in a by-election in 1981. She was aware of the Hill Top Club on Stonebridge as  well as HPCC. She was aware of Leonard Johnson but no other HPCC members. With Brixton and Toxteth erupting they wanted to ensure it did not happen in Brent. She had heard that Mr Johnson took a microphone to disperse a crowd on the estate, although she had not seen that for herself.  At the time the council was going to all the estates where youth were disaffected. Johnson attended a meeting on the estate organised by David Haslma of Harlesden Methodist church and she would not wish to downplay Johnson's role in linking youth with the local authority. 

The council and HPCC worked together to purchase the garage site. HPCC had been really helpful in getting the money and they worked together to get a grant from the European Social Fund in 1982. They wanted to develop a project for the community.  Counsel reminded Abbott about a US visitor who spoke about enpowerment and control - the community should do things for themselves  rather than have things done for them.

It was not Abbott's understanding that HPCC wanted the freehold. She was a supporter of developing the garage as a community project, HPCC were active in presenting their joint  vision for a project that would benefit the community.  The mindset of national and local government (GLC) at the time was that they need to supoort projects in disadvantaged areas so she could not say that Brent would not have received the funding anyway, in view of what was happening nationally,  It had been Brent Council and HPCC campaigning together for the depot.

Abbott told Counsel that he was not making a distinction between HPCC and the community. There were other groups in the steering group apart from HPCC. HPCC was not The Community.  She said that she did not know that HPCC had aspirations to own the freehold but by 1982 she was deputy leader and less involved as she had wider responsibilites.

Day 1: Brent Council v Bridge Park -Technical problems force early adjournment

The first full day hearing of Brent Council vs Leonard Johnson (representing Bridge Park campaigners) was beset by technical problems. There was a small attendance of barristers etc and a witness in the socially distanced  court; but many others, including the Kilburn Times and Wembley Matters, Muhammed Butt, Margaret McLellan, Carolyn Downs and other Brent officers plus Bridge Park supporters, were observing on Skype.

Unfortunately the sound was very poor, breaking up and fading in and out, and the physically present witness, Ms Henry's responses to the Bridge Park Counsel's questions could not be heard at all.

To misquote, surely justice must be heard to be done?

The day started with Brent Council's Counsel questioning the status of the Bridge Park campaigners, pointing out the various entities:  Bridge Park Community Council,  Harlesden Peoples Community Council, Stonebridge Community Trust and made the case that as an unincoporated association they had no status to make a claim on the property.

She also questioned the status of Leonard Johnson claiming that he had stated he was no longer a Trustee of the HPCC, although it was he who had launched the original campaign in 1981 and was named as defendant today.

Michael Green QC, who is hearing the case,  said that if the defendants had a potential beneficial interest in the land it would be unfortunate if it was ruled out on a technicality.

Brent Council submitted that the acquisition of the property (the former bus depot) and its funding was by them.  Other uses had been considered and council documents referred to the site as a 'property that formed a substantial asset' for them.  Counsel for Leonard Johnson pointed out that acquisition of a freehold can be subject to a pre-acquisition agreement that would name it as a community resource.

Brent Council Counsel claimed that Bridge Park was in disrepair, expensive to run and would cost £4m to maintain over the next 5 years.

Counsel for Johnson claimed that Brent Council was moving forward with its plans without taking into account its obligations to the charitable purposes for which the HPCC was set up. He said the context of the original acquisition of the land should be taken into account.  The original campaign sought to set up a community resource that would enable Stonebridge to avert the riots that had engulfed Brixton and Toxteth in 1981.  Brent Council would acquire for the Steering Group that would then be incorporated.  There was an option for them to acquire the freeehold of the site but they could not afford the £1m plus needed.  The purchase had been funded from various sources with the Council only paying half.

We could not hear the responses of a witness, Brent Council solicitor Marsha Henry, who was asked about the original purchase.  She was physically in court and inaudible, but the next witness, Thomas Bryson, Leader of Brent Council at the time, could be heard loud and clear over Skype.

He said there had been a fear of riots in Stonebridge in Spring 1981 and the council had flooded the area with community workers supported by Leonard Johnson, a local youth, and others.  The alternative would have been the riot squad moving in which was something the council did not want.

Leonard Johnson had been in the forefront of setting up the HPCC and  a community campaign to  purchase the bus depot site for a community centre.  The proposal had been supported by the local police ('not those in Whitehall') with whom the council had a good relationship.

The then London Transport Executive had given the Council a deadline for purchase, after which it would go on the open market. The help of Ken Livingston and the late Illtyd Harrington, who were then at the GLC, enabled the council to get a good price.

The Stonebridge Bus Deport Report at the time had been signed by Tom Bryson with Leonard Johnson signing the Forward.  Questioned, Bryson said it was a partnership, neither of them could have done it on their own.

He said that at the time money was tight, Brent Council was unable to fund the purchase from its own resources (they had to impose a 58% rate rise in 1982) and so he 'took my boys' to Brussels to get some funding, as well as asking the government and GLC money.

At this point a recording or telephone conversation interrupted proceedings, drowning out counsel and witness, and the hearing was adjourned until 10am tomorrow morning.