Recent Cases
24 October, 2024
COUNCILLOR GARY MCGARVEY v THE STANDARDS COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND [2024] SC STI 41
Paul Reid KC successfully represented The Standards Commission for Scotland in a recent appeal arising out of an altercation that took place between the pursuer, Gary McGarvey, who is an elected Councillor for Stirling Council, and another councillor. The case involved a summary application under Section 22 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000. The purpose of the Act is to promote ethical standards in the public through the use and imposition of codes of conduct. Another of its purposes is its adjudicatory function to assist in public hearings to decide on breaches of codes of conduct and to regulate the suitable sanctions.
The pursuer had acted in an angry aggressive manner towards another Councillor which was found to constitute a breach of Paragraph 3.1 of the Code at a hearing before the defender. This breach resulted in the Standards Commission imposing a sanction of suspension for one month. The result of imposing such a sanction is to disqualify the pursuer, for life, from being a member of an integration joint board, and from being a member of a Health Board. However, these restrictions do not apply if the sanction is imposed had been censure.
The following arguments were put forward by Paul Reid KC, instructed by Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP on behalf of the defender: it was argued that the sanction that has been imposed was reasonable and that the conduct of the pursuer had been characterised as “egregious and unacceptable.” The pursuer’s grounds of appeal fell into two categories. The first being the “censure issue”. The pursuer argued that the Commission had failed by not first considering imposing a lower sanction, namely censure. The second issues was the “disqualification issue” which, argued the pursuer, arose from the Commission not having proper regard to the practical consequences of the sanction. Paul Reid KC moved to argue that neither ground was justified. The censure issue had been examined and disregarded as the Commission’s reasoning for imposing such sanction could not be criticised. The consequences of disqualification derived from the suspension as a matter of law which had been approved by Parliament and was backed up by legislation. There is a process in which the pursuer can apply to Scottish Ministers to invite them to reconsider at least part of his disqualification. It was, argued the defender, inappropriate for the pursuer to use this mechanism to avoid the policy choice of Parliament. The financial implications that arise from suspension and subsequent disqualification are irrelevant in determining the necessary sanctions that should be imposed.
Based on the above arguments Sheriff Principal Gillian A Wade KC decided in favour of The Standards Commission for Scotland, on the basis that it was clear the defender had properly considered all the inevitable consequences for imposing such suspensions and subsequent disqualifications, and considered a short period of suspension was a reasonable sanction in the circumstances. Sheriff Wade KC stated that there is no serious flaw in the reasoning. All the pursuer’s arguments were rejected by the Court and stated, “It cannot be said that the defender’s panel has erred in the manner suggested by pursuer and accordingly the sanction of suspension must stand.”
The full judgment can be read by clicking here.