A Labour councillor has achieved a significant courtroom victory after a judge ruled that crucial evidence was improperly excluded from her defense in a misconduct hearing. The case involved comments made by Glasgow’s Canal ward representative, Fiona Higgins, on social media.
The Standards Commission for Scotland had refused to admit a series of documents that Ms. Higgins argued were vital to her defense against accusations of breaching the councillors' code of conduct. The legal challenge was financed by Paul McManus, a businessman and drummer for the band GUN.
Lord Sandison found that the Standards Commission had unlawfully excluded seven key documents and ordered their admission in any future proceedings. The complaint against Ms. Higgins was initiated by Martin Booth, former finance chief for Glasgow City Council, following a social media post by the councillor in August 2024.
Ms. Higgins had shared a news report concerning planned reductions in teacher numbers. She contended that council officials were using language intended to downplay the severity of the cuts, focusing on terms like 'reform and transformation' rather than explicitly stating reductions in staff numbers, according to the judgment.
Before the misconduct hearing could proceed, Ms. Higgins launched a judicial review after the Commission denied her access to the documents she deemed essential for her defense. These documents included email exchanges between senior officials discussing budget proposals and materials detailing the potential impact of education cuts and changes to budget terminology.
Lord Sandison emphasized that any doubts regarding the relevance of evidence should generally favor its admission, cautioning against the exclusion of material that could aid a tribunal in reaching a fair and informed decision. The judge determined that several of the rejected documents possessed 'obvious potential relevance' and that the Commission had acted beyond its lawful authority in refusing them. However, some documents, including those related to unrelated criticisms of Mr. Booth, were upheld as excluded.
The ruling from the Court of Session also addressed the argument that Ms. Higgins should have waited to appeal after the watchdog hearing concluded. Lord Sandison stated that individuals claiming an unfair hearing should not be compelled to undergo the process before seeking recourse.
Solicitor advocate Peter Watson, representing Ms. Higgins, described the judgment as a significant victory for the rights of individuals facing disciplinary proceedings. Ms. Higgins expressed her satisfaction, asserting that she had consistently maintained the relevance of the documents and looked forward to presenting her full case with their inclusion.
Mr. McManus commented that the case was undertaken because it was evident that senior figures in government had allegedly conspired to silence an elected official who was exposing their conduct. The Standards Commission has stated it will review the judge's comments and will reschedule the hearing to address the complaint against Councillor Higgins.