Final shame of Dame Shirley

Dame Shirley Porter was today branded "politically corrupt" as she lost the final round of her battle to clear her name over the Westminster council homes-for-votes scandal.

The criticism was delivered by senior Law Lords as they overturned a 1999 Appeal Court verdict that cleared the former council leader and deputy David Weeks of "wilful misconduct."

It means the Tesco heiress once again faces a personal surcharge along with Mr Weeks of £27million, the amount auditors said the homes-for-votes policy cost taxpayers.

The ruling is a vindication of the findings seven years ago of district auditor John Magill, who originally alleged that Dame Shirley and her colleagues were guilty of selling council homes to improve Tory chances in key marginal wards.

In the judgment - which closes a chapter in one of the greatest and longest-running political scandals of the Eighties - Lord Bingham, a senior Law Lord, said: "This was a deliberate, blatant and dishonest misuse of public power... by both of them, not for the purpose of financial gain but for electoral advantage. In that sense it was corrupt.

"The auditor may have been strictly wrong to describe their conduct as gerrymandering, but it was certainly unlawful and he was right to stigmatise it as disgraceful."

Mr Magill had gone to the Lords over the Appeal Court's ruling by a majority of two to one that the practice of homes-for-votes was legal.

The Appeal Court judges had said politicians, either national or local, were entitled to pursue policies such as selling discounted homes to benefit their own party-political ends.

That judgment vindicated Dame Shirley - who claimed she had always thought her actions were legal - but appalled both the auditors and the political opponents who first complained about the practice. They claimed it was a charter for misconduct in public office.

It also overturned a previous High Court decision, where an appeal by Dame Shirley was thrown out and she was branded a "liar" who was well aware the policy was unlawful.

In today's decision, which saw five judges in unanimous agreement, the Lords said it was unrealistic to pretend that councillors were not motivated by electoral concerns.

But Lord Bingham said :"The wilful misconduct of Dame Shirley Porter and Mr Weeks caused the sale of some of those properties pursuant to an unlawful policy of designated sales. The council parted with those properties. The council did not lose the full market value of the properties because it received discounted prices for them. But it lost the difference between the full market value of the properties and the discounted prices received."

Lord Scott said: "This is a case about political corruption. No one took a bribe. No one sought or received money for political favours. But there are other forms of corruption often less easily detectable and therefore more insidious."

Today the Audit Commission said: "We are delighted. We supported the appeal by Mr Magill because important principles were at stake.

"The High Court had previously found that £27million of public money was lost due to the policies of Westminster council, but the case was not just about lost taxpayers' money. It concerned standards of conduct of senior councillors, the appropriate use of public funds, and the rights of local people to challenge the behaviour of their council."

£70m fortune of the Tesco heiress
The 'homes for votes' scandal