Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Argyll and Bute > LA/AB/210

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/AB/210 Concerning an alleged contravention of The Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Robin Currie of Argyll and Bute Council

1. Complaint number LA/AB/210 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Robin Currie ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, and, in particular, one of the key principles of the Code relating to Duty.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant") alleged that the respondent had made himself inaccessible to the complainant and his family. He also alleged that 4 to 5 years ago, in respect of an offence of breach of the peace, the respondent received a "fiscal fine" of £35. Finally, the complainant alleged that on 17 April 2005 the respondent and another man swore at the complainant and his family, and both the respondent and the other man were subsequently charged with breach of the peace.

4. The respondent denied that he had made himself inaccessible to the complainant and his family. He admitted that a number of years ago he accepted a "fiscal fine". He stated that he now believes that his decision to do so was ill-advised, but that in any event the incident happened prior to the Code coming into effect on 1 May 2003 and further, that at the time of the incident he had not been acting in his capacity as a councillor. Finally, he denied that he committed a breach of the peace on 17 April 2005, and stated that it is his understanding that the procurator fiscal is unlikely to pursue a charge of breach of the peace against him.

5. It appeared that the complainant, the respondent and a Mr A (the driver of the local school bus) were close neighbours and at one time were all on friendly terms. However, early in 2004 following an incident involving Mr A and the complainant's son, the complainant wrote to the Head of Transport of the local authority to complain about Mr A. The complainant claimed: "we also spoke to our local councillor, Mr Robin Currie, about this situation but were told he didn't want to get involved as Mr A was a personal friend, as we thought we were at the time." In his response the respondent wrote: "The complainant visited me at my home shortly after the school bus incident to make me aware of the matter but at that time he did not ask me to intervene in the discussions or complaints procedure. In fact I quite clearly recall him saying that he didn't wish me to comment on the matter as he realised that I was on friendly with both parties. I considered the matter at that time to be one between the parents and the school."

6. In relation to the allegation that following the school bus incident the respondent made himself inaccessible to the complainant and his family, it appeared that the complainant's complaints about the driver of the school bus were investigated by the Education Service. It did not seem unreasonable that if the respondent considered his relationship as a neighbour of both parties placed him in a difficulty vis-à-vis the investigation by the Education Service into the complainant's complaint, he should have declined to become involved. Indeed the Monitoring Officer of the Council observed that if Councillor Currie had sought his advice he would have advised that as a councillor he should not interfere in the investigation irrespective of the relationship. In all the circumstances I was satisfied that there was no evidence to support the part of the complaint which alleged that the respondent had contravened the Key Principle of the Code in relation to Duty, by making himself inaccessible to the complainant and his family.

7. In relation to the incident which led to the respondent accepting a "fiscal fine", as this occurred prior to the Code coming into effect on 1 May 2003, I had no jurisdiction to investigate that matter.

8. The remaining part of this complaint related to the allegation that the respondent contravened the Key Principle of the Code relating to Duty by swearing at the complainant and his family while standing in front of the complainant's house. The respondent denied this allegation and there appeared to be no independent evidence to support either version of events. What did seem clear, was that the complainant's apparent dissatisfaction with the outcome of the investigation by the Education Service, appeared to have soured his relationship not only with Mr A but also with the respondent.

9. These findings were made on the basis of the assessment of the evidence during the course of the investigation. In this connection it may be helpful to emphasise that the Councillors' Code of Conduct - including the Key Principles set out in section 2 of the Code - is intended to ensure high standards of conduct by councillors in relation to their duties and responsibilities as councillors. In this particular case there was no evidence whatsoever that the respondent's alleged misconduct on 17 April 2005 related in any way to such duties and responsibilities, although it was accepted that it is a fact that he is a councillor and that the alleged misconduct took place in a public place and involved members of the public. Furthermore, there was no allegation of misconduct under any specific section of the Code (such as section 3 which deals with General Conduct) other than section 2, which deals with the Key Principles rather than the specific rules of conduct. The scope of the Code does not, however, reach beyond conduct of a councillor which is related to his duties and responsibilities as a councillor, and in regard to that part of the complainant's allegations, there was no material evidence of such a relationship.

10. Having considered all information, I concluded that Councillor Robin Currie had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
03 November 2005