High Court judge cuts disqualification term imposed on councillor

A High Court judge has reduced a disqualification term imposed on a long-serving Flintshire councillor, finding that the original sanction was "excessive".

The county council’s entire corporate management team complained in 2009 to the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales about the conduct of independent councillor Patrick Heesom. The ombudsman referred the case to the Adjudication Panel for Wales

That tribunal found Cllr Heesom had committed 14 breaches of the council’s 2001 and 2008 codes of conduct by failing to show respect and consideration for council officers, using bullying behaviour, attempting to compromise the impartiality of officers and conducting himself in a manner likely to bring his office or the council into disrepute.

It disqualified him for two and a half years from being or becoming a member of Flintshire or any other relevant authority within the meaning of the Local Government Act 2000.

Cllr Heesom appealed. He argued that the tribunal should have used the criminal rather than civil standard of proof, erred in its findings as to breaches of the codes of conduct, and imposed an unjustifiably severe penalty.

In his rulingMr Justice Hickinbottom quashed three of the breaches. But he added: “The tribunal found that the appellant's conduct had ‘seriously undermined [the standards in political life] and public confidence’, such that ‘the high threshold required for disqualification… has been crossed (paragraph 21 of the sanction decision).

“I note the ‘chilling effect’ that the fear of sanction potentially has on the freedom of expression…..However, even when the three breaches I have quashed are taken out of account, after anxious consideration, I agree: no sanction short of disqualification would have been appropriate and, in view of the seriousness of the misconduct, disqualification is a proportionate response.”

The High Court judge went on to conclude, though, that two and a half years was an excessive sanction “and manifestly so” given that the conduct complained of was insufficiently serious to warrant it.

“I consider the appropriate period of disqualification to be one of 18 months,” the judge said, adding that this should run from 19 July 2013.

He explained: “The appellant has not been convicted or even charged with any criminal offence; and there is no suggestion that any of the relevant conduct is criminal, or corrupt, or sleaze, or motivated by or resulting in any personal financial gain by the appellant.”

The judge also held that the civil standard of proof had been the correct one to use.

“It is in my view significant that the civil standard of proof has been applied by case tribunals in Wales and England for over 10 years, and has not been questioned,” he said.

“When appeals and judicial reviews have come to the High Court, the standard has never been questioned there, either.

“In my judgment, the point has not been taken before, because it is a point of no substantial force: the appropriate standard is civil – and clearly so.”

Mark Smulian