Appendix 1
Argyll and Bute Council · 7 March 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Council — 7 March 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 1 of 20 Decision of the Hearing Panel of the Standards Commission for Scotland following the Hearing held online and in private, on Wednesday, 19 February 2025. Panel Members: Ms Ashleigh Dunn, Chair of the Hearing Panel Ms Helen Donaldson Dr Lezley Stewart The Hearing arose in respect of a report referred by Mr Ian Bruce, the Ethical Standards Commissioner (the ESC), further to complaint reference LA/AB/3953, concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (the Code) by Councillor Alastair Redman (the Respondent). The Standards Commission usually holds its Hearings in public. In this case, however, it decided to hold the Hearing in private after concerns were raised that a child involved in the matter could be identified which, in turn, could have a detrimental impact upon the child. REFERRAL Following an investigation into a complaint received on 13 August 2023 about the conduct of the Respondent, the ESC referred a report to the Standards Commission on 14 November 2024, in accordance with the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000. Following receipt of the report, the Standards Commission determined to take no action in respect of one issue of complaint, which alleged that the Respondent had claimed falsely to have received communication from constituents about the Complainers’ child. The Standards Commission noted, however, that the ESC had found there was evidence to demonstrate the Respondent’s constituents had raised concerns with him, which he had then passed on to council officers. The ESC noted, in his referral report, that it was entirely proper for councillors to raise concerns on behalf of their constituents, provided they do so in an appropriate manner and through official channels. The ESC found it was appropriate for the Respondent to have raised concerns, in the manner he did, with the Council’s Education Service. Having reviewed the ESC’s report, the Standards Commission was satisfied, for the reasons given by the ESC, that the Respondent’s conduct in respect of this would not amount to a breach of the Code. In the circumstances, the Standards Commission concluded that it was neither proportionate, nor in the public interest, for it to consider that issue at a Hearing. The Standards Commission nevertheless decided to hold a Hearing in respect of the other issue of complaint, as outlined in the referral report. The substance of this was that the Respondent had failed to comply with paragraphs 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Code, which were as follows: Respect and Courtesy 3.1: I will treat everyone with courtesy and respect. This includes in person, in writing, at meetings, when I am online and when I am using social media. 3.2: I will not discriminate unlawfully on the basis of race, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, disability, religion or belief, marital status or pregnancy/maternity; I will advance equality of opportunity and seek to foster good relations between different people. 3.3: I will not engage in any conduct that could amount to bullying or harassment (which includes sexual harassment). I accept that such conduct is completely unacceptable and will be considered to be a breach of this Code. EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING Introductory Remarks by the ESC The ESC advised that the Respondent was an independent councillor. The ESC advised that the Respondent had first been elected in May 2017. Having not been returned at the local government elections in May 2022,
Page 2
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 2 of 20 he had then been re-elected at a by-election later that year. The ESC noted that, as part of his declaration of office, the Respondent had agreed to comply with the provisions of the Code. The ESC explained that, at the time of the events in question, the Complainers’ son was 15 years old and attended a school in the council area. The ESC advised that the Complainers submitted a complaint directly to the Council, in March 2023, about the Respondent’s conduct in raising concerns with council officers about their son allegedly using the female facilities at the school. The ESC noted that the Complainers also made a complaint to his office about the matter in August 2023. The ESC advised that, following an internal investigation, the Council’s Deputy Monitoring Officer found that the Respondent had been passing on concerns raised by his constituents, as he was entitled to do. The ESC explained that, after an abbreviated version of the Deputy Monitoring Officer’s investigation report was sent to both the Complainers and Respondent in December 2023, the Complainers raised a second issue of complaint with his office in January 2024. The ESC explained this was the matter that was to be considered at the Hearing, which was that the Respondent breached the Code during telephone calls with the Council’s Education Manager on 11 and 13 January 2023, by suggesting: • First, because the Complainers’ child cross-dressed, it was likely he put video recording equipment in the girls’ toilets or changing rooms; and • Secondly, people who cross-dressed were more likely to be sexually deviant. The ESC advised that the Respondent was acting as a councillor at the time of the events in question, given he was speaking to a council officer about concerns raised by his constituents. As such, there was no dispute that the Code applied to his conduct. Witness Evidence on behalf of the ESC The ESC led evidence from the Council’s Education Manager. The Education Manager advised that when he was attending a high school in the local authority’s area, he was made aware that the Respondent had raised concerns, based on what he had been told by some of his constituents, that a boy was using the female facilities. The Education Manager advised that, as he happened to be on the same site anyway, he was asked to investigate the matter. The Education Manager explained that, as part of this investigation, he had spoken to the Respondent by telephone on 11 and 13 January 2023. The Education Manager confirmed it was his understanding that the Respondent would have known the telephone interviews would form part of the formal investigation into the concerns he had raised, given the matter was being dealt with under the Council’s complaint procedures. The Education Manager noted that service users will normally follow the complaint procedures themselves. The Education Manager explained, however, that on this occasion, the Respondent had advised that a number of constituents had contacted him directly and that he was representing their views. The Education Manager advised that he considered the Respondent would have been aware that the concerns he was raising would be the subject of an investigation under the Council’s complaint procedures, regardless of whether he was raising them on his own behalf of that of his constituents. When asked what led him to conclude that the Respondent would have been aware that the matters being discussed during the telephone calls would then be reported to the Complainers and their child, the Education Manager advised this was because he was undertaking an investigation in terms of the Council’s formal complaint procedures. As such it was evident that the child, as a key witness and the subject of the concerns, would need to be advised of what was alleged, in order to be able to respond. The Education Manager contended this was “unavoidable and normal”. The Education Manager noted that one of the Complainers worked at the school and advised that he understood the Head Teacher may have spoken to him about the allegations raised. The Education Manager advised, in any event, that as the allegations
Page 3
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 3 of 20 concerned the child, it was inevitable that the child and his parents would need to be advised of the concerns raised. The Education Manager advised he did not consider there was any possibility that the Respondent could have concluded reasonably that the details of their telephone conversations would be considered private and confidential. This was because there was no suggestion that might be the case and, further, because it was evident the conversations concerned a formal complaint that was to be investigated. The Education Manager advised it was clear from their conversations that the Respondent was aware of the identity of the child, albeit he had not named him. The Education Manager contended, however, that the Respondent advised his constituents had reported to him that the child identified as transgender or non- binary. The Education Manager stated that the Respondent’s default understanding that this was the case was a “key element” of their conversations. The Education Manager contended it was very clear, from the language and terminology he used, that the Respondent was sharing his own views during their conversations, as opposed to just passing on those of his constituents. The Education Manager advised that he had been “shocked and surprised” by the substance of what the Respondent was saying and his choice of words, given the context of the conversations as being between two individuals undertaking formal and established roles. The Education Manager advised that, given this context, he had found it “very surprising” that the Respondent had, on four separate occasions, used language, terminology and expressed ideas that he considered were discriminatory and inappropriate. The Education Manager advised that the Respondent had not offered any evidence to support his views and allegations about the Complainers’ child. Instead, he proffered what the Education Manager understood to be his personal opinion about the child, LGBT issues, and anyone who identified as another gender. The Education Manager contended that the Respondent employed a disapproving and judgemental tone that had left him (the Education Manager) in no doubt that his comments were discriminatory and based on transphobia and homophobia. The Education Manager advised the Respondent had used an example or analogy of a farm quickly falling into bankruptcy when it tried to mate bulls with bulls, and cows with cows, to illustrate points he was making. The Education Manager stated that the Respondent strongly suggested that the child who had used the female facilities was likely to be the one alleged to have placed recording equipment in the female changing room. The Education Manager advised that the Respondent had not referred to his constituents having made such a connection. As such, it was evident that this was the Respondent‘s own opinion. The Education Manager advised that his conclusion in this regard was reinforced by the words and phrases employed by the Respondent and the fact that he had referenced wider societal issues, rather than just the alleged incident being investigated. The Education Manager advised that the Respondent described individuals who cross-dress as “more likely to be sexually deviant”. The Education Manager contended, again, that it was evident that this was clearly the Respondent’s opinion. The Education Manager advised that the Respondent also said, on two occasions, that if he was a betting man, he would bet on the child in question being responsible for placing the recording equipment in the changing room. The Education Manager argued that someone who was merely relaying the views of constituents would have done so objectively without making such a statement, employing an analogy about cows and bulls, or using phraseology such as “sexually deviant”. The Education Manager advised that he did not consider the Respondent explicitly accused the child in question of sexual deviancy or of this being his motivation, albeit the statement was made in the context of it being a discussion about the child. The Education Manager further advised that the Respondent had not stated directly that the child would have been responsible for placing recording equipment in the changing room because he cross-dressed. The Education Manager noted, however, that the Respondent had, by then,
Page 4
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 4 of 20 made it clear he was aware the child might be gender fluid as a result of how he dressed or appeared. The Education Manager advised that while the Respondent’s statement to the effect that individuals who cross- dress were more likely to be sexual deviants was general in nature, in this context it was evident it also aimed at the child. The Education Manager contended it was evident from the fact that he did not say he was quoting from his constituents, that the Respondent’s statement to the effect that individuals who cross-dress were more likely to be sexual deviants was his own opinion. The Education Manager advised that he was unable to recall everything that was said, particularly as the conversations had been lengthy, with the first call lasting some 30 to 40 minutes, but that the Respondent had taken them as an opportunity to express his personal views on gender politics. The Education Manager advised that he did not consider some of these views were compatible with education policies that emphasised the Council’s duty of care with student wellbeing and equality being central tenets. In response to cross-examination by the Respondent, the Education Manager accepted the Respondent had written evidence that some of his constituents had raised concerns about the alleged conduct of the Complainers’ child. The Education Manager advised he could understand why some of these constituents may have been reluctant to raise these issues with the school or Council directly, given the sensitive nature of the matter. When asked whether he was commenting on the Respondent’s views, rather than his conduct, the Education Manager advised his concerns related to the terminology the Respondent had used, and the accusations he had made about the Complainers’ child. The Education Manager noted that accusations of sexual deviancy, from an important and influential source, were extremely derogatory and damaging, particularly as they did not appear to have any basis. The Respondent questioned whether, during the conversations, he had constantly referenced his constituents and their views. In response, the Education Manager accepted that this had been the foundation of the conversations, but that the Respondent had not communicated his constituents’ concerns and views to anything like the extent to which he had outlined his own. When asked whether he had a duty to all pupils, not just the child in question, the Education Manager agreed. The Education Manager noted that his aims and priorities, when investigating the matter, were to be fair, objective and thorough. In response to questions from the Panel, the Education Manager advised he was investigating allegations that a male pupil at the school had been using the female changing rooms and toilets. The Education Manager advised he did not explain the Council’s formal complaint procedure to the Respondent, but noted that was because the Respondent was not a witness or party of any complaint. Instead, as no specific constituent had made a complaint directly, the Education Manager had telephoned the Respondent to try to establish what exactly was being alleged. The Panel asked the Education Manager whether it would be reasonable for the Respondent to assume everything that was said during their conversation would or could be shared with the Complainers and, potentially the child,. In response, the Education Manager advised he considered it was, as it would not be fair or reasonable to have any expectation of confidentiality, given the Respondent had raised concerns that he knew would be investigated. The Education Manager contended that an investigation inevitably involved the sharing of facts. While the Education Manager accepted the Respondent’s comments were extraneous to these, they nevertheless formed part of the conversation and contended, as such, it would have been remiss of him to have ignored them.
Page 5
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 5 of 20 The Panel asked whether the Education Manager had asked for an investigation in respect of the Respondent’s comments, given he was unhappy with them. The Education Manager advised that he had not. Instead, he had reported his shock and surprise to his line manager and matters had escalated from there. The Education Manager advised that he had taken notes of his conversations with the Respondent as they had formed part of the formal investigation. The Education Manager advised that he had not considered it necessary to share or check these notes with the Respondent, however, given he was not a witness to events. Instead, he had been contacted as part of the process of establishing the nature of the allegations to be investigated. In response to a question from the Panel, the Education Manager confirmed that, at no point during the conversations, had he asked the Respondent for his views or taken any action that would have encouraged the Respondent to make the comments he had. Evidence from the Respondent: In response to questions from the Panel, the Respondent advised that “a great many constituents” had contacted him by telephone and social media with concerns about the child using female facilities at the school. As these constituents advised that their identities would be made known to the Complainers and their child and they did not wish to appear transphobic, the Respondent had agreed to raise them with the senior council officers on their behalf. The Respondent advised that, when speaking to the Education Manager, he referred repeatedly to “my constituents” when relaying their concerns and what they had told him. The Respondent advised that he had been unaware that the conversations were considered “official” and that council officers had never previously recorded any conversation with him. When asked whether, during the conversations, he had provided his own opinions, in addition to sharing the concerns of his constituents, the Respondent noted he had concerns about males entering female only spaces but had “not particularly” offered his own views. The Panel noted that, during the investigation, the Respondent had provided the ESC with documentary evidence to show he had been contacted by constituents about a boy using female facilities. The Panel noted, however, that there was no mention of recording equipment or sexual deviancy in the documents and asked, therefore, from where concerns about this had emanated. In response, the Respondent advised that his constituents had raised concerns about the recording equipment “on multiple occasions” and that he was quoting directly from them when mentioning sexual deviancy. When asked whether he had provided his own views and opinions on LGBT matters, the Respondent advised he was “not a fan of LGBT” and that he did not “lump people together”. When asked by the Panel whether he had stated during the conversations what he considered LGBT and gender identity matters to be ‘nonsense’, the Respondent advised he “did not believe in acronyms”. The Respondent accepted he would have talked about this, in the context of raising his constituents’ concerns. The Respondent further accepted that he had provided the analogy about bulls and cows, during the telephone conversations, when expressing his view was that there were only two sexes. The Panel noted the Respondent had stated, in an interview on 8 September 2023, as part of the Deputy Monitoring Officer’s investigation (the written transcript of which had been agreed by the Respondent), that during the conversations he had “expressed concerns” about people who dress “as the opposite sex” as there was “evidence to suggest that they are more likely to be sexually deviant”. The Panel asked the Respondent whether he still accepted he had done so. In response, the Respondent advised that as the conversations had taken place a long time ago, he could not recollect exactly what had been said.
Page 6
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 6 of 20 The Respondent was asked whether his position, to the effect that he became involved (at least in part) because his constituents did not wish to appear transphobic in raising their concerns, was compatible with: • the views he then provided during the conversations (which could potentially be categorised as such); and • his position that he was only relaying his constituents’ comments. In response, the Respondent reiterated his contention that he was only passing on what he had heard. When asked what his expectations were, when he raised the concerns with senior officers, the Respondent advised he wished to make sure the school was enforcing single sex spaces and that the serious concerns his constituents had raised about the recording equipment were investigated formally. When asked, given this, whether it was reasonable for him to have understood his conversations with the Education Manager (as the individual responsible for undertaking the investigation) would not be of a formal nature, the Respondent advised he had understood them to be informal chats. The Respondent advised he would only have considered the discussion to have been formal, had the call not been made by someone from the school. The Respondent indicated he was sure he had mentioned the conversation was to be considered as being ‘off the record’, but that he did not recall whether the Education Manager had acknowledged this. When asked whether he understood the Complainers’ child to be transgender, the Respondent noted some of his constituents had described him as a “boy in a dress”, while others had said he was a “boy who liked to dress up”. The Respondent advised that he did not care about this. The Respondent advised that his sincere belief was that men are men, and women are women, and that his concerns solely related to whether any male was entering a female only space. In response to a question about the extent of the Council’s investigation, the Respondent advised he understood it was about both the policy on who could use female only spaces and whether a boy had done so. The Respondent contended the investigation did not really concern any specific child and, instead, was only about whether a boy had entered a female only space. The Respondent advised he had also passed on what he had been told about the recording equipment. The Respondent advised that the police had previously investigated this allegation and not found who was responsible. In response to cross-examination by the ESC, the Respondent advised he did not know whether the Education Manager had explained the purpose of the telephone calls. The Respondent accepted that, in a subsequent discussion with the Deputy Monitoring Officer, he had confirmed that the Education Manager’s note of their conversations was accurate, but advised this was because he was “not the best at reading”, due to being dyslexic. When asked whether it was his position that there was no way he could have known that anything he passed on to the Education Manager would be repeated to the Complainers and their son, the Respondent reiterated that he considered they were just having informal discussions in which he was relaying his constituents’ concerns. The Respondent acknowledged that given he was reporting a serious allegation about a minor, it would be reasonable for him to have anticipated both the child and his parents would be interviewed. The Respondent advised, however, that he would not have expected them to be told about his own views regarding the allegations. When asked whether he understood the Complainers’ child to be transgender or non-binary, the Respondent advised he had not thought about this and considered only that the child was male. The ESC noted that the Respondent had consistently described the child as a “boy who identified as a girl”, and as a “trans male”, and asked how the Respondent had made the connection between the child cross-dressing and being transgender or non-binary, or between being transgender and using female facilities. In response, the Respondent advised he did not know what non-binary meant, and that those were phrases used by his constituents when corresponding with him about the matter.
Page 7
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 7 of 20 When asked whether he accepted having said that he would bet on the child in question being likely responsible for placing the recording equipment in the changing room, and that individuals who cross-dress were more likely to be sexually deviant, the Respondent again advised he was simply relaying what his constituents had told him. The Respondent confirmed that he did not have any evidence to support this accusation. The Respondent further confirmed he had not asked his constituents for any evidence as he was not investigating the matter and was only passing on their views. The ESC noted that the Respondent had signed off the record of his interview with the Deputy Monitoring Officer in which he admitted having stated, during the telephone conversations in question, that he had “concerns” about those who cross-dressed and, further, that there was evidence to suggest they were “more likely to be sexually deviant”. The ESC noted the Respondent was now denying having expressed these views and asked whether, therefore, it was his position that the Deputy Monitoring Officer had falsified the record. The Respondent advised he did not consider this to be the case and, instead, he felt both the Education Manager and Deputy Monitoring Officer had misinterpreted his comments. The Respondent advised that his difficulties with reading and writing meant that he found it hard to assimilate information to determine accuracy. When asked why he had told the Education Manager that he considered LGBT and gender identity issues were ‘nonsense’ and how these matters were connected to the allegations about the child, the Respondent denied raising the issues and again reiterated that he had only relayed what his constituents had told him. The Respondent advised that his own views were distinct to those he had relayed. When asked whether referring to a minor as being potentially sexually deviant was derisory, the Respondent advised he neither wished to agree or disagree. In response to re-examination by the Panel, and a question as to whether he had said, and considered, that someone who cross-dressed was more likely to be ‘sexually deviant’, the Respondent advised that did not want to give a view on this but confirmed these were comments made by his constituents. Submissions made by the ESC The ESC suggested the Panel should find the Education Manager’s account of his conversations with the Respondent credible, given it was supported by contemporaneous notes and the fact that he had raised concerns about them with his line manager shortly afterwards. The ESC noted the Respondent had implied the Education Manager might be motivated by a wish to be ‘politically correct’. The ESC noted, however, that there was no evidence of this. The ESC noted, in any event, that such a motivation would not be a reason for the officer to have falsified an account of what the Respondent had said. The ESC contended that, by contrast, the Respondent’s contention that he had not provided his own views during the conversations was not credible or reliable. In support of this assertion, the ESC noted that the Respondent did not deny having said that individuals who cross-dressed were more likely to be ‘sexually deviant’, albeit he claimed he was only relaying his constituents’ views. The ESC contended that this phraseology was unusual and, as such, memorable, which made it more likely the Education Manager would recall the context in which it had been used. The ESC further noted that while the Respondent had claimed, both during the investigation and at the Hearing, that he was only repeating his constituents’ comments, he had admitted to the Deputy Monitoring Officer that he had been expressing his own views. The ESC argued that the Respondent’s claim that he had signed off the record of his interview with the Deputy Monitoring Officer without reading it properly was implausible. The ESC further noted that, at no point when being interviewed either by the Deputy Monitoring Officer or the ESC’s Investigating Officer, had the Respondent advised that reference to sexual deviancy had been made by his constituents. The ESC advised that, on the contrary, the Respondent told the Investigating Officer that he had not used the phrase at all.
Page 8
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 8 of 20 The ESC accepted that, during the telephone conversations, the Respondent outlined his constituents’ concerns that the Complainers’ child might be responsible for the alleged planting of a recording device. The ESC contended, however, that the evidence demonstrated the Respondent had gone beyond this and expressed his own view that the child was likely responsible because he cross-dressed and (as assumed by the Respondent) was transgender and non-binary. The ESC acknowledged that the Education Manager’s evidence was that the Respondent had not referred directly to the Complainers’ child when expressing the view that individuals who cross-dressed were more likely to be ‘sexually deviant’. The ESC contended, however, that as the Respondent had expressed this opinion when speaking to the Education Manager about the allegations concerning the Complainers’ child, it was evident it was an indirect reference to that child. The ESC confirmed that councillors have every right to report concerns raised by their constituents. As such, there would be no issue had the Respondent had simply shared his constituents’ concerns about the potential use of female facilities by a boy and asked for the matter to be investigated. The ESC contended, however, that the Respondent had not only concluded the child was guilty of planting a recording device in the female facilities but had also shared his assumption that this was because (he understood) the child cross-dressed and his personal view that individuals who cross-dressed were more likely to be ‘sexually deviant’. The ESC argued that accusing someone of a potential criminal act and of sexual deviance, based on such an assumption, was objectively and inherently disrespectful. The ESC accepted that the Respondent may not have been fully cognisant of the Council’s complaint process, but argued that he must have been aware that his comments would be recorded and shared with the Complainers and their child. This was because he knew he was being contacted by the Education Manager, in his capacity as a council officer responsible for investigating the concerns raised by his constituents. Given the serious and potentially criminal nature of the allegation he had made, the ESC argued it was implausible to suggest the Respondent would have been unaware that his comments would or could be passed on. The ESC noted that natural justice dictates that in order to defend himself, the Complainers’ son would have to be made aware of the allegations made against him. As he was a minor at the time, it is also clear that his parents would be provided with that same information. The ESC contended, therefore, the Respondent knew, or should have known, that any comments made to the Education Manager during their discussions may later be passed on to the Complainers and their son. The ESC noted that the Deputy Monitoring officer had confirmed, in his investigation report, that recording equipment had been found in a female toilet at the school some two or three years earlier. An investigation had been undertaken at the time, but no culprit had been identified. The ESC noted that, despite this and there being no suggestion of a further incident having occurred, the Respondent had chosen to accuse the Complainers’ son of being likely responsible during his telephone conversations with the Education Manager in January 2023. The ESC contended that, regardless of whether the accusation was made to the child’s face or was to be passed on to him and his parents, the making of such a serious, shocking and unfounded claim about a minor, and the making of a suggestion that he was somehow ‘sexually deviant’, all because he apparently cross-dressed, was inherently disrespectful. The ESC argued, therefore, that the Respondent had breached paragraph 3.1 of the Code. The ESC contended that it was evident the Respondent had made his remarks and accusation because he believed the Complainers’ son to be transgender. In support of this, the ESC noted that, during the investigation, the Respondent provided documentary evidence from his constituents who described the Complainers’ son as “trans” and “a boy who identifies as a girl”. Therefore, when the Respondent was speaking to the Education Manager, he evidently believed the pupil they were speaking about was transgender.
Page 9
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 9 of 20 The ESC noted the Respondent contended that he did not know what transgender or non-binary meant. The ESC suggested that this was implausible, given his position as a politician, and given gender identity issues and the potential conflict between transgender and women’s rights has been a defining feature of Scottish politics in recent years. The ESC advised, in support of this, that the Complainers’ complaint form included screenshots of the Respondent’s social media posts in which he referenced and shared his views on the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. The ESC noted that the content of these posts coincided clearly with the views he shared with the Education Manager during their two telephone conversations, including the analogy he made about the mating of cows and bulls. The ESC advised that the Respondent stated, when interviewed, that he was not prejudiced against people who chose to cross-dress. The ESC contended, however, that his comments to the effect that individuals who cross-dressed were more likely to be ‘sexually deviant’, and that a child was likely to have placed recording equipment in the girls’ facilities because he cross-dressed, appeared to be entirely prejudicial. The ESC advised that the Complainers had confirmed their son was not transgender or non-binary, and simply prefers to cross-dress on occasion. The ESC argued, nevertheless, that the Respondent had made his accusation and comments in the belief, and on the basis, that the Complainers’ son was transgender (having conflated this with his preference to occasionally cross-dress). The ESC argued that the Respondent made the accusation and disrespectful and offensive comments about the Complainers’ son because he perceived or understood him to be transgender. The ESC contended, as such, the Respondent treated the Complainers’ son differently due to a perceived protected characteristic and in doing so, discriminated against him. The ESC contended that there was “no question” that the Respondent’s conduct in doing so would have had an impact on the Complainer’s son, both in terms of the investigation itself and also in respect of how others will have treated him as a result. The ESC argued, in any case, that even if the Respondent had not perceived the Complainers’ son to be transgender, his comments demonstrated a failure to foster good relations between different people, as required by paragraph 3.2 of the Code. The ESC advised this was because the Respondent made offensive comments about a then 15-year-old child based solely on what he chose to wear and also because he stated those who cross-dressed were more likely to be ‘sexually deviant’. The ESC acknowledged that the Respondent was entitled to hold and express his own views, including on issues concerning gender identity and women’s rights. The ESC argued, however, that during the telephone conversations the Respondent went beyond voicing a political view or opinion and, instead, expressed his personal views in a way that demonstrated a wider prejudice or intolerance against people who cross- dressed. The ESC contended, therefore, that the Respondent failed to foster good relations between different people and, as such, breached paragraph 3.2 of the Code. The ESC acknowledged that the Respondent’s comments were a one-off incident. He contended, however, that as the Respondent was an adult, an elected member and a public figure; he was also in a position of power over the Complainers’ son who, at the time, was a 15-year-old child. The ESC noted the Standards Commission’s Advice Note for Councillors on Bullying and Harassment states that a key factor is the impact, not the intent, of any behaviour. The ESC advised that the Complainers have reported that their son was “sickened” by the Respondent’s comments and becomes anxious whenever the matter is discussed. The ESC advised that, when asked by the Investigating Officer about the impact on him since, the Complainer’s son had explained it had a huge impact on him as it had left him feeling uncomfortable about attending school. The Complainers’ son advised it had upset him “immensely to hear that someone in a position of power would say something like this” about him, with no actual evidence.
Page 10
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 10 of 20 The ESC noted that the Respondent had accused the Complainers’ son of likely hiding recording equipment in a female changing room. The ESC argued that the Respondent did not have “a shred of evidence” for this accusation, other than the allegations purportedly made by some of his constituents. The ESC contended that the Respondent’s accusation was based entirely “on a set of inappropriate and discriminatory assumptions”. The ESC noted, in support of this view, that the claim that recording equipment had been placed in the changing room had already been investigated by the police, who had not found anything. The ESC advised he considered the Respondent’s conduct, in making the accusation in this context, was akin to “spreading malicious rumours”. The ESC noted, in support of this, that although the Respondent had only made his remarks to one person, he should have been aware (for the reasons previously outlined) that they would be passed on. The ESC contended, therefore, that the Respondent had targeted the Complainers’ son. The ESC advised that the Complainers’ son would not have found out about the Respondent’s comments until December 2023 (this being nearly a full year after they were made), when the Deputy Monitoring Officers’ report was sent to his parents. The ESC accepted, therefore, that the Respondent’s conduct may have only indirectly affected the Complainers’ son. The ESC argued, nevertheless, that by repeating unsubstantiated rumours from constituents, and by also making his own unfounded accusations, the Respondent risked making life difficult for the Complainers’ son and causing him distress and humiliation, regardless of intent. The ESC argued it would be reasonable to expect that any child would feel offended, humiliated, intimidated, frightened or uncomfortable if they heard that an adult in a position of power had spread a rumour about them. The ESC contended, in the circumstances, that the Respondent’s conduct met the threshold for amounting to bullying and harassment and, therefore, that he had also breached of paragraph 3.3 of the Code. The ESC noted that the Courts have held that politicians commenting on matters of public or political interest attract enhanced protection in respect of their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ESC advised he considered, that while the Respondent’s comments about the Complainers’ child were personal, they still related to a matter of public interest; being an allegation that a boy was using the female facilities in a local authority school. The ESC concluded, therefore, that the Respondent would attract enhanced protection in respect of his freedom of expression. The ESC acknowledged that the Courts have held that there is little scope for restrictions on political speech or on debate on questions of public interest and also that, in a political context, a degree of the immoderate, offensive, shocking, disturbing, exaggerated, provocative, controversial, colourful, emotive, non-rational and aggressive, which would not be acceptable outside that context, is tolerated. The ESC noted, however, that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute, and that restrictions may be imposed to: • ensure that the conduct of public life does not fall below a minimum level; and • protect the protecting the rights and reputations of others, including from offensive, abusive and defamatory remarks. The ESC contended that, in this case, a restriction on the Respondent’s freedom of expression was justified as the Respondent’s comments about the Complainers’ child were offensive and defamatory and, as such, could bring the Council and local democracy into disrepute. The ESC noted the Respondent could have passed on his constituents’ concerns without making offensive, unwarranted and unprompted comments to a council officer about a 15-year-old child. The ESC noted the Respondent contended in written submissions provided to his office, that he made the comments during a “politically charged discussion”. The ESC argued that was not an accurate characterisation of the conversations, given: • their purpose was for the Education Manager to gather information from the Respondent about his constituents’ concerns, and
Page 11
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 11 of 20 • there was no suggestion or evidence that, during them, the Education Manager had shared his own views or challenged any proffered by the Respondent. The ESC advised that, as public representatives, councillors are expected to adhere to higher standards of conduct. The ESC contended that the Respondent’s negative assumptions had undermined the dignity and rights of the Complainers’ child as they encouraged discrimination and, potentially, social exclusion. The ESC argued that if the Respondent’s remarks had been about an adult, his right to freedom of expression “may have carried more weight”. The ESC noted that the Respondent had argued that there was a factual basis for his comments. The ESC contended, however, that there was no factual basis for the Respondent’s allegations that the Complainers’ child had likely placed recording equipment in the girls’ facilities (the existence of such equipment being a matter that had already been the subject of an investigation). The ESC advised that the Respondent had indicated he had evidence to support his contention that people who cross-dressed were more likely to be ‘sexually deviant’, but that he had failed to produce this. The ESC therefore invited the Panel to conclude that this particular comment also had no basis in fact. The ESC contended, for the reason he had outlined, that while the Respondent benefited from enhanced protection in respect of his right to freedom of expression, this did not extend to discriminatory or intolerant speech, or gratuitous personal attacks. The ESC argued that the Respondent, in making unfounded and offensive allegations, had engaged in such conduct and, therefore, a restriction on his enhanced right to freedom of expression could be justified. In response to questions from the Panel, the ESC confirmed that he considered it reasonable to assume that the Respondent’s remark regarding sexual deviancy referred to, or were aimed at the child, given the context of the discussion. The Panel queried whether it was reasonable to conclude that the Respondent knew, or should have known, that his comments to the Education Manager would be passed on to the Complainers and their child, given they only came to the Complainers’ attention on receipt of the Deputy Monitoring Officer’s report (which was distinct from the Education Manager’s own investigation). In response, the ESC noted that the Education Manager’s was a senior officer who had been asked to conduct an investigation into the concerns raised, which included allegations about the child. The ESC noted that the Respondent’s own allegations had formed part of that investigation and, given their seriousness, there was no possibility of them not being passed on, regardless of how this happened. In considering whether the Respondent would benefit from enhanced protection in respect of his right to freedom of expression, the Panel questioned whether, if his remarks were accepted as being his own personal opinions and speculative views, they could be said to be matters of public interest or concern. The ESC acknowledged this was debatable and advised that he was “less persuaded” that the Respondent’s personal, derogatory comments could be afforded enhanced protection. The ESC confirmed that he had not based his contention that the Respondent’s freedom of expression might have been afforded more weight had his comments been directed at an adult on any available case law. The ESC also confirmed that the Respondent had not been asked, during his office’s investigation, to provide for any evidence to substantiate his assertion that individuals who cross-dress were more likely to be sexually deviant. The ESC advised, however, that it had been the Respondent’s position, by the time of the investigation, that this was the view of his constituents, that he was simply relaying, rather than his own opinion or understanding.
Page 12
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 12 of 20 Submissions made by the Respondent The Respondent stressed that he had never intended to cause any harm to any of his constituents or any individual. The Respondent noted, in this regard, that he had raised his concerns via the proper and appropriate channels and, at no point, had he made any of the allegations public. The Respondent advised that the concerns he had raised about the use of female facilities and the placing of recording equipment were emotive matters, which had caused upset to many of his constituents. The Respondent explained that he felt an obligation to protect all pupils in the local area. It was in this context that he had raised the concerns of his constituents. The Respondent indicated he had repeated the expressions his constituents had used when advising him of their concerns, which he accepted were ‘colourful’ in nature. The Respondent advised that people living in rural areas tended to use old-fashioned language and terms and suggested that the Standards Commission and council officers needed to make allowances for that. The Respondent contended that he was unaware that his comments would be passed on to the Complainers or their child. In support of this, the Respondent noted that the Education Manager had not made it clear that he was telephoning him in any kind of formal capacity. The Respondent advised that he engaged regularly in political debates with officers and indicated he had understood the telephone conversations with the Education Manager were of that nature. The Respondent noted that the ESC had indicated he did not want to control public speech and political debate. The Respondent argued, however, that the ESC could not be impartial given his staff all used gender pronouns in their automatic email signatures. The Respondent drew the Panel’s attention to a relatively recent Standards Commission Hearing about a Glasgow City Councillor1. The Respondent noted, in that case, the Panel found that as the Respondent’s alleged disrespectful comments had been made during a political debate and concerned matters of public interest, she was entitled to enhanced protection in respect of her right to freedom of expression under Article 10. The Respondent argued that his remarks were made in a similar political context and concerned matters of public concerns. As such, and in order for there to be consistency, he should also be afforded enhanced protection in respect of his Article 10 rights. The Respondent further contended that he had not made any personal remarks and, instead, had simply passed on his constituents’ concerns. The Respondent argued that a restriction on his right to freedom of expression and his right to raise concerns about issues with men using female safe spaces would have a chilling effect, as it would prevent robust debate and deter women from raising concerns about the use of female only spaces. In support of this contention, the Respondent noted that parents at the school had been “terrified” of raising concerns as they knew their identities would be leaked if they did so. The Respondent noted that the ESC contended that his action had offended and hurt the Complainers’ child. The Respondent advised, however, that he had no intention of making public any of his enquiries. The Respondent contended that they should have been kept confidential and should not have been ‘leaked’. In response to a question from the Panel about whether he understood his telephone conversations with the Education Manager to be a political debate or discussion, the Respondent confirmed that yes, he considered it was entirely possible to have a political debate over the telephone. When asked by the Panel whether, if it was the case that he was engaged in a political debate, he accepted he was expressing his own views during the telephone calls, the Respondent advised he considered the conversations to be both about the concerns he was raising and a political discussion. The Respondent reiterated that he did not consider the conversations to be anything other than informal chats. 1 Case reference LA/G/3919
Page 13
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 13 of 20 When asked how he had reached this conclusion (and had not understood the conversations to be part of a formal process), given he had received the first call from the Education Manager the day after he had raised his concerns with senior officers, the Respondent reiterated it was because he regularly engaged in informal discussions with officers and, further, because the Education Manager had telephoned from the school itself, rather than his office. The Panel asked the Respondent if he accepted that, even if it was reasonable for him to have understood his conversations with the Education Manager to be of an informal nature, he was still raising concerns about a specific, individual and identifiable child. In response, the Respondent advised he did not accept the discussion only concerned one person, as it may have been the case that more than one male had used the female facilities. DECISION The Hearing Panel considered the submissions made both in writing and orally at the Hearing. It concluded that: 1. The Councillors’ Code of Conduct applied to the Respondent, Councillor Redman. 2. The Respondent had breached paragraphs 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Code. A restriction on his right to freedom of expression that such a finding would entail could be justified. Reasons for Decision 1. The Panel noted the complaint before it concerned the conduct of the Respondent, Councillor Redman, during telephone conversations with the Council’s Education Manager on 11 and 13 January 2023. The Panel noted the Education Manager had telephoned the Respondent to discuss concerns raised about the use of female facilities at a local authority school. As such, the Panel was satisfied that the Respondent was acting in his capacity as an elected member during the conversations. The Panel was therefore satisfied, and noted it was not in dispute, that the Code applied to the Respondent’s conduct at the time of the events in question. 2. In reaching its decision as to whether there had been a breach of the Code, the Panel took the following three-stage approach, as outlined in the Standards Commission’s Advice Note on the Application of Article 10 of the ECHR: • First, it would consider whether the facts found led it to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent had failed to comply with the Code. • Secondly, if so, it would then consider whether such a finding in itself was, on the face of it, a breach of the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10. • Thirdly, if so, the Panel would proceed to consider whether the restriction involved by the finding was justified by Article 10(2), which allows restrictions that are necessary in a democratic society. Stage 1: Whether the Respondent’s conduct amounted, on the face of it, to a breach of the Code 3. The Panel noted that it was not in dispute that the Education Manager telephoned the Respondent to discuss concerns the Respondent had raised, on behalf of constituents, about the Complainers’ child allegedly using the female toilets or changing rooms at a local school. 4. Having heard evidence from the Respondent and Education Manager, the Panel noted there was a dispute as to what was said during the calls and, in particular, whether the Respondent had repeated his constituents’ concerns (as he was entitled to do) or whether he had gone further and advanced his own views. 5. The Panel found the Education Manager to be a credible and reliable witness and accepted his evidence that, during the conversations, the Respondent stated that:
Page 14
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 14 of 20 • first, because the Complainers’ child cross-dressed, it was likely he put video recording equipment in the girls’ toilets or changing rooms; and • secondly, people who cross-dressed were more likely to be sexually deviant. In making this assessment, the Panel also considered that the Education Manager had no reason to lie and noted his version of events was supported by contemporaneous notes. 6. By contrast, the Panel noted a number of inconsistencies in the Respondent’s position. In particular, the Panel noted that the Respondent’s position in relation to the second remark had changed, in that he had agreed, in a witness statement provided to an internal council investigation, that he had been expressing his own concerns and views. The Panel did not accept, as plausible, the Respondent’s position that he had agreed the contents of this statement as he had not read it properly. In support of this assessment, the Panel noted that the Respondent admitted, in response to questions put to him at the Hearing, that he considered the conversations to be both about the concerns he was raising and a political discussion. It further found that the Respondent had been evasive when asked directly, when giving evidence on oath, whether he had proffered his own views on the allegations about the child. 7. The Panel noted, in any event, that the Respondent had accepted he had raised LGBT and gender identity matters and had provided an analogy to support his view that there were only two sexes during the telephone conversations. The Panel agreed there would have been no reason for him to do so, had he been expressing his constituents’ views only. The Panel was further of the view that the lack of a logical link between an individual’s choice to wear clothes more normally associated with someone of another gender, and their sexual preferences or the likelihood of them being responsible for a criminal act, would make the comments appear more unusual and make it more likely the Education Manager would recall both that the remarks had been made and the context in which they had been imparted. 8. The Panel also accepted the Education Manager’s evidence that it was evident, from the timing and context in which it was made, that the Respondent, when making the second remark (to the effect that people who cross-dressed were more likely to be sexually deviant), was doing so in the context of the discussion about Complainers’ child. As such, even if it was also a general opinion about individuals who cross-dress, it was not plausible or reasonable to perceive it as being an entirely separate and distinct statement. The Panel rejected the Respondent’s contention that the remark did not necessarily concern the Complainers’ child because it may have been the case that more than one male had used the female facilities. This was because there was no suggestion or evidence that he was accusing any other child or was aware that any other child might be choosing to cross-dress. 9. The Panel agreed that the Respondent would, or reasonably should have, been aware that, as the person responsible for investigating the matter, the Education Manager would be obliged to take a note of what was discussed. The Panel further agreed that the Respondent would, or reasonably should have, been aware that it was likely any allegations made, and the basis for these, would be shared with the Complainers, given the accusations were of a serious nature and concerned their then 15-year-old child. The Panel agreed with the ESC that it was evident that an adherence to principles of natural justice would mean the child would be informed of the accusations, and any basis or evidence for these, in order to be able to respond and defend himself. 10. The Panel did not find the Respondent’s position that the Education Manager, a senior council officer, would be calling him for an “informal chat” about such a serious matter, to be credible, or that he [the Respondent] had requested the discussion be ‘off the record’. The Panel accepted the Education Manager’s evidence that there had been no suggestion that it was or might be the case. While the Panel accepted the Respondent may not have expected his own opinion about individuals who cross-dress would be shared, it considered he should have been aware this was a possibility, given these had been proffered in support of his accusation that the Complainers’ child was likely responsible for the alleged placement of video recording equipment in the female facilities.
Page 15
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 15 of 20 11. The Panel agreed with the ESC that, as councillors have every right to report concerns raised by their constituents, there would be no issue if the Respondent had simply shared his constituents’ concerns about the potential use of female facilities by a boy and asked for the matter to be investigated. The Panel noted, however, that in his remarks the Respondent effectively made serious accusations on his own behalf (as opposed to just passing on what his constituents had allegedly told him); being both that the child had undertaken a potentially criminal act and was also likely ‘sexually deviant’. The Panel had not seen any suggestion, or been provided with any evidence, to indicate this accusation was based on anything other than hearsay and how the Respondent understood the child occasionally dressed. The Panel considered that making such an accusation in the circumstances was disrespectful towards the child and, as such amounted, on the face of it, to a breach of paragraph 3.1 of the Code. 12. The Panel noted the ESC had concluded, on balance, that the Respondent had understood the child to be transgender. This was because, in some of the documentary evidence provided to his office by the Respondent, the child was described as “trans” and “a boy who identifies as a girl”. The Panel noted also that the Respondent, in his agreed witness statement provided to the Council’s internal investigation, stated that: • “people cannot have any sex other than one assigned to them at birth”; and • “LGBT matters, in particular the area of gender identity, were nonsense”. 13. The Panel accepted fully that the Respondent was entitled to hold and express these opinions. The Panel nevertheless considered that, had the Respondent not thought the child to be transgender, there would have been no reason for him to proffer these views in the context of a discussion about concerns relating to the child’s alleged conduct. The Panel was satisfied, therefore, that the Respondent’s accusation was based on an understanding or perception that the child was transgender, or because he was under the misapprehension that anyone who cross-dressed must identify as such. The Panel noted that the Respondent had indicated, at the Hearing, that he did not understand what “trans” and “non-binary” meant, but did not find this position to be credible given: • the views he had expressed during the Council’s internal investigation, as outlined above; and • it was not in dispute he had posted comments on social media concerning the debate on transgender and women’s rights. 14. The Panel agreed, that in making an unsubstantiated accusation on the basis of a protected characteristic, perceived or otherwise, the Respondent failed to foster good relations between different people. The Panel concluded, therefore, that the Respondent had also, on the face of it, breached paragraph 3.2 of the Code. 15. The Panel noted that bullying is inappropriate and unwelcome behaviour that is offensive and intimidating, and which makes an individual or group feel undermined, humiliated or insulted. The Panel noted it is the impact of any behaviour rather than the intent that is the key. The Panel further noted that bullying usually arises as a result of an individual misusing their power and, while it tends to be a pattern of behaviour or course of conduct, it can also be a one-off serious incident that becomes objectionable or intimidating. 16. The Panel accepted there was no evidence that the Respondent’s conduct had been repeated beyond the two conversations or that he had made accusations about the child in any other forum. The Panel acknowledged that the Respondent had not made his comments directly to the child or the Complainers, and accepted he did not intend to upset or insult them. 17. The Panel nevertheless considered, as previously noted, that the Respondent should have been aware, that there was a strong likelihood his comments would be shared with the child’s parents and, by
Page 16
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 16 of 20 extension, the child. The Panel agreed with the ESC that, as an elected politician, the Respondent was in a position of power and authority. The Panel was of the view that in making a very serious and unsubstantiated accusation on his own behalf, from a position of power, before any concerns raised by his constituents had been investigated, the Respondent engaged in inappropriate, offensive and intimidating behaviour. The Panel agreed that it was reasonable to conclude the Respondent should have been aware that such behaviour had the potential to make the Complainers and their child feel humiliated and insulted, regardless of whether the comments had been made directly to them or passed on at a much later date. The Panel further agreed with the ESC that it was reasonable to consider the Respondent should have understood that any child would feel intimidated and uncomfortable if they were to discover an adult in a position of power had been making unsubstantiated allegations of criminality and ‘sexual deviance’ about them. 18. After some debate, the Panel therefore concluded, on balance, that the Respondent had also, on the face of it, breached paragraph 3.3 of the Code. Stage 2: Whether a finding of a contravention of the Code would be a breach of the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR 19. The Panel noted that enhanced protection of freedom of expression under Article 10 applies to all levels of politics, including at a local level. The Panel further noted that the Courts have held that political expression is a broad concept and that there is little scope under Article 10(2) for restrictions on political speech or the debate of questions of public interest2. 20. The Panel acknowledged that the Courts have held that political expression or speech is a broad concept and that there is little distinction between political discussion and discussion of matters of public concern3. The Panel noted, however, that the Courts, while being careful not to unduly restrict the breadth of this concept, have held that gratuitous personal comments do not fall within the scope of this concept4 and that a politician indulging in offensive abusive will not attract the higher level of protection5. The Panel noted, therefore, that this meant that not all remarks made by a politician (and in this case, an elected member of a local council), will attract enhanced protection6. 21. The Panel did not consider the Respondent’s telephone conversations with the Education Manager could be categorised as political discussions or political debates. This was because it was evident, or should have been evident, that the sole purpose of the telephone calls was for the Education Manager to obtain information from the Respondent to allow him [the Education Manager] to understand the precise nature of the concerns and whether there was any evidence or basis for the allegations raised, in order to define the scope and extent of the investigation he was undertaking. The Panel further noted, in support of its conclusion, that there was no evidence or suggestion that, during the conversations, the Education Manager challenged the Respondent, proffered his own views or engaged in any debate. The Panel further noted that the Respondent would have been aware that, as a senior council officer, the Education Manager was obliged to maintain political neutrality and, as such, would not be telephoning him [the Respondent], in a professional context, to engage in a debate about political issues. 22. The Panel accepted that any issues the Respondent raised about the policy on the use of female only spaces or wider matters surrounding transgender and women’s rights were matters of public concern. The Panel did not accept, however, that unsubstantiated allegations and views about a specific identifiable child’s alleged conduct, choice of clothing, or potential sexual deviancy could be so 2 Castells v Spain (1992) 14 EHRR 445 3 Thorgeirson v Iceland (1992) 14 EHRR 843 4 Heesom v Public Service Ombudsman for Wales (2014) EWHC 1504 (Admin) 5 Livingstone v Adjudication Panel for England (2006) EWHC 2533 (Admin) 6 R (Calver) v Adjudication Panel for Wales (2012) EWHC 1172 (Admin)
Page 17
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 17 of 20 categorised. As such, the Panel did not accept that the Respondent would attract enhanced protection in respect of his right to freedom of expression when making remarks and proffering opinions on these matters. Stage 3: Whether any restriction on the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression involved by a finding of a contravention of the Code would be justified by Article 10(2) of the ECHR 23. The Panel noted, in any event, that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute. Article 10(2) states that restrictions can be imposed, provided they are necessary in order to achieve a legitimate aim. The Panel noted that legitimate aims can include: • protecting the rights and reputations of others; and • ensuring public confidence in local government is not undermined and that a council is not brought into disrepute. 24. The Panel accepted, however, that the Courts have found any restriction on freedom of expression must also be proportionate to the legitimate aim being pursued. As such, the Panel was required to undertake a balancing exercise, weighing the protection to freedom of expression enjoyed by the Respondent against any restriction imposed by the application of the Code and the imposition of any sanction. In doing so, the Panel had regard to the following findings that have been made by the Courts: • The necessity of any restriction on the exercise of freedom of expression must be established convincingly and be in response to a pressing social need. • The less egregious the conduct in question, the harder it is for a Panel, when undertaking its balancing exercise, to justifiably conclude that a restriction on an individual’s right to freedom of expression is required7. • A careful distinction is to be made between factual statements on the one hand, and value judgements on the other. While the existence of facts can be demonstrated, the truth of value judgments is not susceptible to proof8. 24. The Panel accepted that the Respondent’s remarks to the effect that: • as the Complainers’ child cross-dressed, it was likely he put video recording equipment in the girls’ toilets or changing rooms; and • people who cross-dressed were more likely to be sexually deviant, could be classed as a value judgement or opinion (as opposed to statements of fact), in that they were not susceptible to proof. This was because the concepts of cross-dressing and sexual deviancy were open to interpretation, as was the extent of what was meant by ‘likely’ in any given scenario. 25. The Panel noted, however, that even where a remark amounts to a value judgement, there must exist a sufficient factual basis to support it, failing which it will be deemed excessive9. The Panel further noted that the obligation to have such a sufficient factual basis can be considered proportionate to the nature and degree of the allegation in question, meaning the more serious an allegation, the more sound the factual basis has to be10. 26. The Panel noted that it had found, in this case, the Respondent had made serious, unfounded and gratuitous accusations of potential criminality and sexual deviancy about a then 15-year-old child. The Panel noted it had not been provided with any evidence to support these allegations and, instead, had found the Respondent had based them on his understanding of how the child allegedly and occasionally dressed (and a perception that, as a consequence, the child was transgender). The Panel noted that it had not been presented with any evidence to suggest that the child had been responsible for the 7 Calver (ibid) 8 Lingens v Austria (1986) Series A 103 9 Pedersen and Baadsgaard v Denmark (GC) 49017/99 10 Pederson (ibid)
Page 18
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 18 of 20 placement of any recording equipment, as alleged by the Respondent. Indeed, the Panel noted that evidence had been led to suggest the police had not found who had placed any recording equipment, when undertaking an investigation into the allegations about the issue some two years earlier. The Panel was not satisfied, therefore, that the Respondent had demonstrated a sufficient factual basis that was proportionate to accusations of such a serious nature. Consequently, the Panel concluded that the remarks were excessive. 27. The Panel noted that the Respondent, in his submissions, had stated that a restriction of his freedom of expression, in the circumstances, would have a “chilling effect” on those wishing to safeguard single-sex spaces, in that it may make individuals less willing to come forward and raise concerns. The Panel rejected the Respondent’s contention in this regard. This was because the Panel considered that the Respondent could have passed on any concerns both he and his constituents may have had to council officers without making unfounded accusations and disrespectful and discriminatory remarks about a child. The Panel did not consider, therefore, that a restriction on the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression would, in any way, restrict his ability to undertake his role in assisting his constituents in making their views known to council officers, or that it could dissuade concerned citizens from raising concerns about the use of single-sex spaces. 28. The Panel was therefore satisfied that a restriction on the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression was relevant, sufficient and proportionate to protect the reputation and rights of the child in question, and to prevent public confidence in local government and the Council from being undermined. As such, the Panel concluded that the finding of a breach of the Code would not contravene Article 10, and determined that a finding of a breach of paragraphs 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Code could be made. Submission in respect of Mitigation and Sanction The Panel noted the Complainers had submitted an impact statement. The Panel advised the Respondent that it would take into account the fact that the statement was not taken under oath and could not be tested, given the Complainers had not been asked to give evidence at the Hearing. The Panel noted that the Complainers advised, in their impact statement, that: • since the unfounded and accusations about their son had been made, their family had been under considerable stress; • their son had left the community in order to be safe from such baseless accusations; and • the Respondent had not shown any remorse for his actions and how they had impacted upon their son and family. The Respondent advised that the length of time taken to investigate the matter had caused him and his family considerable stress. The Respondent explained that, at the time of the telephone conversations, there had been a great deal of heated public debate on transgender and women’s rights issues. The Respondent advised that his only motivation was to protect safe spaces for women and girls. The Respondent advised he was now worried that women and girls would feel unable to raise concerns about such matters. The Respondent reiterated his view that the Council’s Education Department should not have ‘leaked’ the information he provided, or his identity as the individual raising concerns, as he had understood these would be kept private. The Respondent argued that any publicity about the Complainer’s child had not been caused by his actions. The Respondent asked the Panel to note that he was from a poorer background and was not well-educated. The Respondent stated that individuals from where he was from spoke plainly and indicated that was what he had done.
Page 19
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 19 of 20 SANCTION The decision of the Hearing Panel was to suspend, for a period of two months with effect from 25 February 2025, the Respondent, Councillor Redman, from all meetings of the council and of any committee or sub- committee thereof and of any other body on which the councillor is a representative or nominee of the council or body. This sanction was made under section 19(1)(c) terms of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000. Reasons for Sanction 1. In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered: • first, whether the interference (i.e. the proposed sanction) was the minimum necessary, or whether less restrictive means could be employed; and then • secondly, whether the benefit of that least restrictive measure outweighs its adverse impact on the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression. For example, whether any benefit in applying a sanction in respect of protecting the rights and reputations of others would outweigh any impact on the Respondent. 2. In making its decision on sanction, the Panel had regard to the Standards Commission’s Policy on the Application of Sanctions. A copy of the policy can be found on the Standards Commission’s website at: https://www.standardscommissionscotland.org.uk/cases/hearing-rules 3. The Panel began by assessing the nature and seriousness of the breach of the Code. The Panel agreed that the requirement to behave with courtesy and respect, to foster good relations between different people and to refrain from bullying are key requirements of the Code. The Panel noted that a failure to adhere to these provisions can have a detrimental impact on the rights and reputations of others and can erode public confidence in elected members and the local authorities they represent. 4. In this case, the Panel noted that the Respondent had agreed, as part of his acceptance of office as a councillor, that he would abide by the terms of the Code. The Panel noted it had found, however, that the Respondent had made serious, unfounded and gratuitous accusations of potential criminality and sexual deviance about a then 15-year-old child, based only on his understanding how the child allegedly and occasionally dressed (and a perception that, as a consequence, the child was transgender). The Panel found the Respondent’s behaviour towards the child was disrespectful, discriminatory and amounted to bullying. The Panel was of the view, therefore, that the breaches of the Code were serious in nature. 5. The Panel considered, nevertheless, that while conduct had occurred over the course of two telephone calls, essentially it was a one-off incident and, as such, was limited in duration. 6. The Panel then considered the aggravating and mitigating factors as set out in the Policy on the Application of Sanctions, beginning with those in mitigation. The Panel noted that mitigating factors are those which may lessen the severity or culpability of the breach. 7. The Panel, in mitigation, acknowledged that the Respondent had co-operated fully with the investigative and Hearing processes. There also had not been any previous findings of a contravention of the Code by the Respondent. 8. The Panel acknowledged the Respondent’s stated intention in respect of protecting women and girls’ spaces. The Panel further acknowledged there was no evidence or suggestion of any repeated conduct, or of further targeting of the child by the Respondent.
Page 20
COUNCILLOR ALASTAIR REDMAN ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Page 20 of 20 9. The Panel then proceeded to consider whether there were any aggravating factors; being ones that may increase the severity or culpability of the breach. 10. The Panel accepted fully that the Respondent was entitled to hold and express opinions on issues relating to transgender and women’s rights and noted that the Code did not, in any way, restrict this right. The Panel further acknowledged that the Respondent had every right to pass on concerns his constituents may have had to council officers. The Panel found, however, that he had engaged in disrespectful and discriminatory behaviour when doing so. The Panel was particularly concerned that the Respondent’s conduct was based on the child’s presumed transgender identity. 11. The Panel noted the Respondent had not shown any insight into the potential impact of his conduct, particularly on the child and his family. It further noted that the Respondent had not proffered any apology or demonstrated any remorse. 12. The Panel was of the view that a censure, being the minimum sanction available to the Panel, was not appropriate given the seriousness of the conduct and impact it would have had on the Complainer and their child. 13. Having considered the nature and seriousness of the breach, as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors identified, the Panel concluded that a short suspension was the appropriate sanction in the circumstances. In particular, the Panel agreed that a short suspension would achieve the aims, as outlined in the Policy on the Application of Sanctions, of: • preserving the ethical standards framework; • promoting adherence to the Councillors’ Code of Conduct; • maintaining and improving the public’s confidence that councillors will comply with the Code and will be held accountable if they fail to do so; and • achieving credible deterrence. 14. The Panel accepted that the Respondent’s conduct was essentially one-off and limited in duration. In the circumstances, it did not consider that a disqualification or lengthy suspension was warranted or justified. 15. The Panel was satisfied that the imposition of a short suspension was the minimum necessary to achieve the aims outlined above and, in particular, to protect the rights and reputation of the Complainers’ child. The Panel was of the view it was also necessary to discourage other councillors from engaging in similar conduct. The Panel was also satisfied that the necessary interference (being the short suspension) outweighed the adverse impact on the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression. 16. Having considered all of the matters outlined above, the Panel concluded, on balance, that the appropriate sanction, in the circumstances, was to suspend fully the Respondent, for a period of two months, with effect from 25 February 2025. RIGHT OF APPEAL The Respondent has a right of appeal in respect of this decision, as outlined in Section 22 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000. Date: 24 February 2025 Ashleigh Dunn Chair of the Hearing Panel