Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland

Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland REPORT Complaint number LA/G/1942 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors Code of Conduct by Councillor William McAllister of Glasgow City Council Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland Thistle House, 91 Haymarket Terrace, Edinburgh EH12 5HE T: 0300 011 0550 E: info@ethicalstandards.org.uk W: http://www.ethicalstandards.org.uk/ I.4.1 01-04-11

CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Outline of the Complaint and the Response 3.0 The Investigation 4.0 Consideration of the Evidence 5.0 Findings and Conclusion Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E The Complaint The Response List of Persons Interviewed The respondent s representations on the Proposed Report The Commissioner s comments on representations on the Proposed Report

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Complaint number LA/G/1942 alleges a contravention of the Councillors Code of Conduct ( the Code ). The Code was issued by the Scottish Ministers in terms of section 1 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 ( the 2000 Act ) and came into effect on 1 May 2003. A revised edition of the Code was issued on 21 December 2010. 1.2 The complaint has been lodged by ( the complainer ) who alleges a contravention of the Code by Councillor William McAllister ( the respondent ). The respondent is an elected member of Glasgow City Council ( the Council ). 1.3 It is alleged that the respondent has contravened the Councillors Code of Conduct, and, in particular, section 3 General Conduct, paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 as they relate to alleged disrespectful conduct shown toward a member of the public whilst acting as a councillor. With regard to Section 3 of the Code, paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 state: 3.1 The rules of good conduct in this section must be observed in all situations where you act as a councillor, including representing the Council on official business. Conduct at Meetings 3.2 You must respect the chair, your colleagues, Council employees and any members of the public present during meetings of the Council, its Committees or Sub-Committees or of any Public Bodies where you have been appointed by, and represent the Council. You must comply with rulings from the chair in the conduct of the business of these meetings. Paragraph 10 of the Guidance on the Councillors Code of Conduct issued by the Standards Commission for Scotland states: 10. It is very important to note that the rules of good conduct set out in Section 3 must be observed in all situations where councillors are acting as councillors, including representing the Council on official business. You should be mindful that your perception of when you are carrying out official business and when you are acting privately may be different to how it is viewed by a member of the public. You may wish to treat the Code as being applicable in all situations in which you might be perceived to be acting as a councillor. Factors to consider include: whether you are clear about the capacity in which are you acting; whether you describe yourself as a councillor or are otherwise readily identifiable as a councillor in the situation / circumstances; whether you are on council premises or at a council event; whether you are using social media where you are identifiable as a councillor; whether your conduct could reasonably be regarded as bringing your position as a councillor, or your council, into disrepute; whether you are engaged in political activity, or comment on political matters and whether these fall within or outwith the scope of the

council s functions; whether you are representing the council or speaking on behalf of the council. 1.4 The respondent has signed a declaration of acceptance of the office of councillor under the Local Authorities (Councillors) (Declaration of Acceptance of Office) (Scotland) Order 1990, as amended, in terms of which the respondent has undertaken to meet the requirements of the Councillors Code of Conduct in the performance of his functions in that office. 1.5 For the purpose of this investigation, I was assisted by Mr Ralph Noble, Investigating Officer. 1.6 This Report has been prepared for submission to the Standards Commission for Scotland in terms of section 14(2) of the 2000 Act. The Report was submitted in proposed form to the respondent for any representations. Details of the representations received and the extent to which the representations have been accepted or otherwise are set out in Appendices D and E. 2.0 Outline of the Complaint and the Response The Complaint 2.1 The complaint is set out in a complaint form and related correspondence which are attached as Appendix A. The complainer alleges that on 13 September 2016, whilst on duty at his place of work within Maryhill Police Office, Glasgow, the respondent was disrespectful to him during two telephone calls made to these premises in which the respondent made personal, slanderous, degrading and unsubstantiated comments concerning him. The Response 2.2 The response is set out in two letters which are attached as Appendix B. The respondent refutes the allegation. He is silent as to whether he in fact made the alleged telephone calls or the associated comments which are the subject of the complaint. 2.3 The respondent does however provide a background on his opinion of the complainer s professional conduct as a serving police officer and alludes to having made repeated complaints regarding him to his professional body between 2007 and the present day. The detail of such complaints closely correlates with the nature and wording of the comments allegedly made to the complainer by the respondent on 13 September 2016. 2.4 The respondent explained that between 1999 and 2000, prior to his being elected, he campaigned to reclaim the streets from what he described as organised crime families. He advised that one such family were in charge of a local community centre from which the complainer often performed his official duties. The respondent was of the view that the family concerned wrongly had the support of the police, local politicians, the Procurator Fiscal and local clergy who were sympathetic toward the named family, adding also that the complainer had once been cited as a

defence witness in High Court criminal proceedings against a member of the family concerned. 2.5 The respondent s narrative supplied what he considered to be supportive evidence for the alleged legitimacy of the comments concerning the complainer which form the basis of the complaint. This narrative was based on extracts from a 2012 book entitled Caught in the Crossfire concerning organised criminality in Glasgow in which the names of the complainer and other police officers had featured. This was accompanied by further anecdotal comment regarding his receipt of complaints from parents regarding the alleged bullying behaviour of the complainer in his duties at a local secondary school. The respondent explained that in his view the complainer had not sued for libel over the book as he could not as it is true. The respondent suggested that the complaint was simply retaliation for past complaints which he had made against the complainer as a serving police officer. 2.6 Although making reference to the complainer and others by name, the extracts provided from the publication were innocuous without direct relevance to the comments allegedly made by the respondent. No evidence of the additional constituent complaints received by him was offered to support this account, other than a single name and partial address of one of these parents. 3.0 The Investigation 3.1 To establish the background to the complaint, the Investigating Officer sought and received information from the Council and other bodies. 3.2 Having considered the documentary evidence, the Investigating Officer proceeded individually to interview the complainer and relevant witnesses. The interviews took place on 2 and 3 February 2017. A list of those interviewed is attached as Appendix C. 3.3 The respondent did not avail himself for interview as his diary was full. He questioned whether there was a requirement for him to meet with the Investigating Officer or to make further statements on the complaint. He further advised that this was a busy time owing to the coming local elections and was a very stressful time for him. Given this position, the request was not pursued. The respondent s written account therefore represents his complete response to the complaint. 4.0 Consideration of the Evidence 4.1 Councillor William McAllister has been a councillor for 10 years and is currently a member of the Council s Personnel Appeals Committee. 4.2 Prior to and following his being elected to office, the respondent has taken a vocal position critical of organised crime activity in his ward area in the City of Glasgow. 4.3 The respondent has since 2001 made a number of complaint allegations to Strathclyde Police and more recently Police Scotland, concerning the alleged professional conduct of the complainer as a serving officer. None of these complaints has been upheld. Two complaints made by the

respondent in this regard prior to 2009 record that, following investigation, the first had been abandoned due to a lack of engagement with the complaint process, while the second was found to be unsubstantiated following investigation. A further complaint was made by the respondent and recorded on 18 July 2012 concerning the complainer s alleged oppressive conduct toward unidentified children and association with known criminals at an unspecified date and time. This complaint was investigated but abandoned due to Councillor McAllister s apparent lack of engagement with the complaints process. Further correspondence in this regard took place on 15 November and 4 December 2012 in which an additional complaint concerning the complainer being cited as a defence witness in a criminal trial in May 2001 was lodged. On 22 January 2013, Councillor McAllister was advised that the complainer s giving evidence in this manner had been in line with current force procedures and as such presented no misconduct issue. 4.4 The complainer is presently based at Maryhill Police Office as a serving police officer. He has in past postings been based in the locality on a variety of community based and youth diversionary roles which have required him to work from or in conjunction with a local community centre and secondary school premises. A proportion of his diversionary work has involved training and supporting junior football team(s) in the locality. 4.5 The complainer presently performs a desk based co-ordination role at Maryhill Police Office along with other colleagues with whom he shares office space in close proximity to that of the senior management team. His duties include answering redirected telephone calls from the nearby management team offices. The telephone extensions are equipped with a loudspeaker option. Officers involved in this duty follow routine telephone protocol where they identify themselves by name and station and make general enquiry as to how they may assist the caller. 4.6 The respondent is in very frequent telephone contact with the senior management of the police office, in pursuit of his duties as a ward councillor. The officers responsible for answering redirected calls are aware that unsuccessful attempts by the respondent to reach these senior officers directly by telephone can lead to his calls being abandoned once redirected and answered. The officers responsible for fielding such calls are well acquainted with the respondent s contact telephone number(s), his voice and his status as a local councillor which prompts his regular contact with the police office. 4.7 At 1245 hours on Wednesday 13 September 2016, the complainer, witness A and witness B were on duty at Maryhill Police Office when the complainer answered a telephone call which had been redirected from the Chief Inspector s extension nearby. The complainer identified himself by name to the caller who identified himself as Councillor McAllister and advised that he sought the Chief Inspector. The complainer also recognised the respondent by voice. 4.8 On advising the respondent that the Chief Inspector was not available at that time, the complainer enquired if he could assist. At this, the respondent appeared to acknowledge the officer s name and began asking questions regarding his previous postings. This quickly became what the complainer described as a rant, with the respondent speaking very loudly

in a threatening and aggressive tone asking him if he was still a bully and was he still beating up weans. The complainer found difficulty interjecting, as the respondent repeated his comments, but tried to offer a return call from the Chief Inspector. He ultimately terminated the call as it appeared to him that the respondent would not listen. Witnesses A and B had observed the complainer taking the call and his referring to Mr McAllister, noting that the complainer was obviously surprised and taken aback by its course. The complainer immediately brought the call to the attention of the Chief Inspector, witness C, who was engaged in a nearby meeting room, seeking to complain about the respondent s behaviour and comments. 4.9 About five to ten minutes later (1250-1255), a further incoming telephone call was redirected from the Chief Inspector s extension and the complainer again answered it. On identifying himself, he found that it was again the respondent calling. Given the previous call, the complainer put his extension onto loud speaker, enabling his colleagues, witnesses A and B, to hear the call. Councillor McAllister was heard repeatedly to call the complainer a bully, asking him if he was still beating up weans ; and was he still meeting up with (named individual). The respondent also stated that that he knew that he (the complainer) went to the chemist in Westray to take drugs asking are you proud of yourself?. 4.10 On hearing the respondent on loudspeaker, the Chief Inspector, witness C, entered the complainer s workspace from his adjoining office to hear the respondent say to the complainer are you still taking drugs at the chemist at Westray? or do you still take drugs at the chemist at Westray?. The complainer terminated the call in the same manner as the first call from the respondent as he felt that he was unable to reason with him. 4.11 The complainer found the respondent s tone to be louder than normal, aggressive and accusatory in making what he described as slanderous, demeaning and totally unfounded accusations which amounted to a personal, verbal attack on him. The complainer found these remarks to be disgraceful and upsetting. He was in no doubt that the respondent had been acting as a local councillor when making the calls to the police office, as he did so routinely. 4.12 The complainer lodged a formal complaint to the Commissioner regarding the respondent later that day (13 September 2016). The complainer considered that the respondent s conduct had been disrespectful toward him in terms of paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of the Code. 4.13 During the course of the following afternoon (14 September 2016) the Chief Inspector, witness C received a telephone call from the respondent regarding the complainer s alleged conduct between the years 2000 and 2012, citing his association with parties allegedly involved in organised crime in similar terms to the historic complaints made by him. Given the nature of the allegation, the matter was referred to the force Counter Corruption Unit. 4.14 On 17 September 2016, the respondent again contacted witness C regarding his complaint about the complainer s historic conduct. This was followed by further contact on 19 September 2016, when the respondent

sought to escalate his complaint and no longer wished to engage with officers from that police office. The respondent made further contact with another member of the senior management team at the police office on 5 October 2016, in which references regarding the complainer in the publication Caught in the Crossfire were raised by him. 4.15 Subsequent notification was received by witness C from the force Counter Corruption Unit that there was no new evidence regarding the respondent s original allegations to be considered. The matter raised by the respondent on 14 September 2016 was then formally recorded for processing as a complaint against the police on 12 October 2016. 4.16 Written statements of the event were received from the complainer and witnesses A, B and C. An interview with the complainer confirmed his evidence as shown at paragraphs 4.7 to 4.9 of this report. He advised that he had been fully aware of the historic allegations made by the respondent, all of which he described as ludicrous and far fetched. Whilst considering that he was not obliged to qualify any of the respondent s allegations in any way, he offered his views and advised that he had previously considered legal action in this regard but had found that to be cost prohibitive. 4.17 He explained that he suspected the respondent s allegation concerning his service at a local secondary school could have been based on an historic complaint made by a pupil with whom he had had cause to engage over criminal conduct. The complaint had been fully investigated and proven to be unfounded. He had been outraged by the respondent s apparently new allegation that he had taken drugs at a local chemist s premises and observed that he had often visited the pharmacy in question, as he had many other premises, in the course of performing beat duties and engaging with the community. 4.18 The complainer totally refuted any suggestion of associating with organised criminals and explained that his being cited as a defence witness in May 2001 had related purely to character evidence concerning his football coaching days with a particular youth a number of years previously. He offered that his knowledge of the same youth football group had since been utilised for a prosecution to assist with identification. He considered the respondent s comments to have questioned his integrity and both his personal and professional reputation. 4.19 Interviews with witnesses A and B confirmed their written evidence as to their knowledge of the respondent s telephone calls on 13 September 2016, as shown at paragraphs 4.8, 4.9 and 4.11. This included the nature and wording of the comments made by the respondent. Both were familiar with the respondent s normal telephone manner and described his tone during the call which they overheard as being loud and aggressive. They had no reason to believe that the respondent had been acting other than in his role as a councillor in keeping with his usual business. 4.20 At interview, witness C confirmed his written statement and evidence as shown at paragraphs 4.8, 4.10, 4.13 to 4.15. The witness described the portion of the respondent s second call which he had overheard on loudspeaker as less of a conversation and more of a download from the respondent. He advised that he had had professional contact with the

respondent for a considerable time and, whilst he found him to be passionate about his ward area, he had on occasion considered him to be unreasonable and demanding. He described the respondent s manner during the part of the call which he had overheard as being offensive, rude and disrespectful toward the complainer, his tone being louder than normal and ranting. The witness was of the view that the respondent had perhaps been unaware that the complainer was based at that particular police office until recognising his name and speaking to him on 13 September 2016. 4.21 The police complaints history in relation to all of the allegations made by the respondent against the complainer showed that none of the allegations had been upheld following investigation. The outcome of these complaint investigations had been routinely advised to the respondent. 4.22 The final closure correspondence in February 2017, prompted by the respondent s most recent complaint to police of 14 September 2016, outlined that, as previously advised to him on closure of each complaint, his collective allegations concerning the complainer had been fully investigated and had not been upheld. This included confirmation that the name of an additional witness supplied by him on 12 December 2016, in regard to the complainer s alleged conduct at a local secondary school some years previously, had been interviewed and had denied having any issue with the complainer. 4.23 Efforts made to engage with the journalist author of the publication Caught in the Crossfire, supplied by the respondent as the complainer and others had been named in it, were unsuccessful. Its relevance was examined but it was found to add no value or support to any aspect of the complaint investigation. 4.24 Investigation therefore established the following facts: a) The respondent regularly contacted the senior management team of the Maryhill Police Office by telephone as a ward councillor; b) The respondent s position as a local councillor, his voice and normal demeanour were familiar to parties answering his telephone calls to the police office; c) The respondent initiated two telephone calls to Maryhill Police Office on 13 September 2016, and made comments to the complainer; d) The comments made by the respondent were specific and personal to the complainer and were of a gratuitous and offensive nature, including an inference of potential criminality; e) Those who overheard the second call were unaware of anything to suggest that the respondent had not been acting as a councillor, as was normally the case with his contact there; f) The respondent had over a number of years made formal complaints against the police concerning the complainer relating to matters similar to those which now feature in the complaint to the Commissioner. None of these complaint allegations had been upheld;

g) The respondent had, prior to directing his comments toward the complainer on 13 September 2016, been advised of the outcome of all complaints investigated by the professional standards investigatory authority; h) The respondent had resubmitted his previous complaints against the police concerning the complainer on 14 September 2016, some three and a half years subsequent to his last interaction with police over these matters. 5.0 Findings and Conclusion 5.1 The complainer alleges that Councillor McAllister contravened the Councillors Code of Conduct, as outlined in paragraphs 1.3 and 2.1 of this Report. 5.2 The complaint alleges that the respondent was disrespectful toward the complainer during two telephone calls, both prompted by the respondent, which took place at the complainer s workplace, Maryhill Police Office, on 13 September 2016. 5.3 I considered whether or not the alleged conduct was covered by the Code and, if so, whether this conduct amounted to a breach of the Code on the part of the respondent. 5.4 Section 3 of the Code relates to General Conduct and the associated provisions to be observed by councillors in this regard. Paragraph 3.1 of the Code applies these provisions to all situations where a councillor is acting as a councillor, including when representing the Council on official business. 5.5 Whilst paragraph 3.2 of the Code relates to Conduct at Meetings, and outlines provisions regarding the need to demonstrate respect for the chair, colleagues, Council employees and any members of the public present at such meetings, these same provisions equally apply to all situations when a councillor is acting in that capacity, by virtue of paragraph 3.1 of the Code. 5.6 I first considered the evidence outlined within part 4 of this report in terms of establishing whether the respondent had been acting as a councillor during his telephone calls to the complainer s place of work on 13 September 2016. 5.7 It was clear that the respondent s telephone contact with the police office, principally with the senior police management, took place on an almost daily basis, and was a regular feature of his engagement with them as a local councillor in pursuit of ward business. 5.8 I noted that staff at the police office who answered telephone calls redirected from the senior management offices in their absence were well acquainted with the respondent s status as a councillor. His calling the police office on 13 September 2016 was not an unusual occurrence and there was no evidence to suggest that his doing so had been anything other than his regular practice as a councillor.

5.9 I found that paragraph 10 of the Standards Commission for Scotland guidance (as shown at paragraph 1.3 to this report), was directly relevant to the circumstances described in the complaint. The Guidance advises councillors that they may wish to treat the Code as being applicable in all situations in which they might be perceived to be acting as a councillor. That is certainly the way in which he was understood to be acting by those who received or overheard the calls on 13 September. 5.10 Based on the evidence available to me, I concluded that the respondent had been acting as a councillor at the time in question and his conduct had therefore been subject to the provisions of the Code. 5.11 It is not part of my role to make any determination on the veracity or otherwise of the respondent s allegations against the complainer. I simply note that the allegations made by the respondent to the appropriate investigatory authority over a number of years had not been upheld. 5.12 In considering the respondent s conduct, I have had regard to the right to freedom of expression conferred by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Human Rights Act 1998). 5.13 In this connection, it is necessary to take account of the individual s right to freedom of expression as described by paragraph 1 of the Article and the responsibilities and restrictions which may apply in terms of paragraph 2 of the Article, particularly the protection of the rights and reputation of others. 5.14 I considered the context of the telephone calls and the language used by the respondent, in the light of the case law which emphasises the greater degree of toleration which may be accepted in cases where comments are made in a political context. It does not appear to me, in the circumstances, that the gratuitous, personal comments made by the respondent would qualify as political expression and therefore for the additional protection afforded to those who make such statements. 5.15 The respondent s comments had not been expressing a political opinion of any kind, but could be seen as an offensive abuse. The comments had been made in a one-one exchange as opposed to any form of public debate. 5.16 I considered the fact that, at the time of making the comments to the complainer, the respondent had already exercised a number of opportunities for investigation and scrutiny of serious allegations against the complainer and he had been formally advised on more than one occasion by the investigatory authority that these allegations had not been upheld. 5.17 I also note that the outcome of the respondent s historic allegations could have given him reason to question the factual basis or reliability of the allegations which he chose to pursue with the complainer directly in the course of the telephone calls. 5.18 On the evidence available to me, I did not consider that the respondent s actions could be considered to have any legitimate and sound basis which

afforded him the protection provided by Article 10. The remaining question was therefore determination of whether his conduct in making the comments reported had constituted disrespect in terms of his Code obligations. 5.19 Evidence of what had been said by the respondent was clear, as was the manner in which it had been said, being described as loud, aggressive and accusatory. I was in no doubt that the comments had been gratuitous and offensive in nature and were directed toward the complainer as an individual and as such were contrary to the respondent s obligation under paragraph 3.2 of the Code to demonstrate respect toward members of the public. 5.20 I therefore found that the respondent s conduct as reported on 13 September 2016 had breached paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of the Code. 5.21 In relation to the complaint LA/G/1942 I have come to the conclusion that having regard to the findings in section 5 of this Report, Councillor William McAllister has contravened paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of the Councillors Code of Conduct. Thistle House 91 Haymarket Terrace Edinburgh EH12 5HE 3 May 2017 Bill Thomson Commissioner