I know its been sometime since Cllr Hefin Thomas lost his appeal to the Adjudication Panel for Wales. I posted about it back in October see Cllr Hefin Thomas another excuse for a Councillor.
Anyhows, the Adjudication Panel for Wales has now published their decision report on their website.
And it's a damning verdict, the following is an extract from the decision report:
6.3 Appeal Tribunal’s Decision
6.3.1 The Appeal Tribunal considered all the written and oral submissions submitted to it in this appeal. From those submissions and the evidence put before the Appeal Tribunal, it is clear that Cllr Thomas showed an unwillingness to be frank and showed a reluctance to provide full and accurate disclosure of information to those investigating the allegation unless and until pressed to do so.
6.3.2 It is significant that Cllr Thomas appears to have been unwilling or unable to learn any lessons from the fact that he was prosecuted in the Magistrates Court on criminal charges because of a failure to make full disclosure of his circumstances when making a claim for benefits. If he had learned from that experience, he should have realised that, in co-operating with the subsequent investigation by the Ombudsman and his appearance before the Standards Committee, it was his duty to provide full, carefully checked and accurate information so that there could be no possibility or misunderstanding and any doubts about his integrity could be assuaged.
6.3.3 It was also incumbent upon him to act in a way that members of the public and fellow councillors would consider to be exemplary, notwithstanding his criminal conviction. Instead his conduct had engendered doubts about his sincerity and the level of his contrition.
6.3.4 Mr Parry on behalf of Cllr Thomas made much of Cllr Thomas’ self-referral and that considerable weight should be given to this. The Appeal Tribunal considers that any councillor finding himself in the circumstances that befell Cllr Thomas should ensure self-referral was made promptly and without hesitation. It is clear from the evidence that Cllr Thomas did not act promptly when he became aware of the prosecution and subsequent conviction. It would have been to Cllr Thomas’s greater credit if he had disclosed the intended prosecution as soon as he received notice of it.
6.3.5 It is also clear from the evidence that inaccurate or misleading information was provided by Cllr Thomas to the Ombudsman and to the Standards Committee. The Standards Committee was of the view that there was a perceived pattern of behaviour relating to a failure or unwillingness to provide full information.
6.3.6 Mr Parry was mistaken in submitting that Cllr Thomas would have received the same sanction if he had not co-operated and had not pleaded guilty to the criminal offence. It seems apparent to the Appeal Tribunal that Cllr Thomas on his own admission had no viable defence to the criminal charges and a conviction was inevitable. If Cllr Thomas had not self-referred the breach of the Code, an investigation would have followed in any event and may have resulted in a referral of the case by the Ombudsman to the Adjudication Panel for consideration by a ‘Case Tribunal’, not a Standards Committee of the Council. A Case Tribunal has greater powers of sanction than the Standards Committee.
6.3.7 The Appeal Tribunal has applied little weight to these submissions but has recognised and taken them into account. Cllr Thomas did plead guilty to the criminal offence and did self-refer. Appropriate credit must be given for these actions.
6.3.8 The Appeal Tribunal is satisfied that the Standards Committee gave Cllr Thomas every opportunity to substantiate his mitigation during the Standards Committee hearing. The Appeal Tribunal has duly considered the mitigation put to the Standards Committee and to the Appeal Tribunal. The Appeal Tribunal is satisfied that appropriate credit was given by the Standards Committee for the mitigation put forward by Cllr Thomas but that the mitigation was outweighed by other factors of the case including Cllr Thomas’ credibility. The Appeal Tribunal is satisfied that the Standards Committee applied due proportionality having regard to all the facts in deciding on the sanction that should be applied to Cllr Thomas.
6.3.9 The Appeal Tribunal considers that the 6 month suspension imposed by the Standards Committee was not disproportionate in view of the circumstances of the case.
6.3.10 The Appeal Tribunal accordingly decided by unanimous decision to endorse the decision of the Isle of Anglesey County Council’s Standards Committee that Cllr Thomas should be suspended for 6 months.
Anyhows, the Adjudication Panel for Wales has now published their decision report on their website.
And it's a damning verdict, the following is an extract from the decision report:
6.3 Appeal Tribunal’s Decision
6.3.1 The Appeal Tribunal considered all the written and oral submissions submitted to it in this appeal. From those submissions and the evidence put before the Appeal Tribunal, it is clear that Cllr Thomas showed an unwillingness to be frank and showed a reluctance to provide full and accurate disclosure of information to those investigating the allegation unless and until pressed to do so.
6.3.2 It is significant that Cllr Thomas appears to have been unwilling or unable to learn any lessons from the fact that he was prosecuted in the Magistrates Court on criminal charges because of a failure to make full disclosure of his circumstances when making a claim for benefits. If he had learned from that experience, he should have realised that, in co-operating with the subsequent investigation by the Ombudsman and his appearance before the Standards Committee, it was his duty to provide full, carefully checked and accurate information so that there could be no possibility or misunderstanding and any doubts about his integrity could be assuaged.
6.3.3 It was also incumbent upon him to act in a way that members of the public and fellow councillors would consider to be exemplary, notwithstanding his criminal conviction. Instead his conduct had engendered doubts about his sincerity and the level of his contrition.
6.3.4 Mr Parry on behalf of Cllr Thomas made much of Cllr Thomas’ self-referral and that considerable weight should be given to this. The Appeal Tribunal considers that any councillor finding himself in the circumstances that befell Cllr Thomas should ensure self-referral was made promptly and without hesitation. It is clear from the evidence that Cllr Thomas did not act promptly when he became aware of the prosecution and subsequent conviction. It would have been to Cllr Thomas’s greater credit if he had disclosed the intended prosecution as soon as he received notice of it.
6.3.5 It is also clear from the evidence that inaccurate or misleading information was provided by Cllr Thomas to the Ombudsman and to the Standards Committee. The Standards Committee was of the view that there was a perceived pattern of behaviour relating to a failure or unwillingness to provide full information.
6.3.6 Mr Parry was mistaken in submitting that Cllr Thomas would have received the same sanction if he had not co-operated and had not pleaded guilty to the criminal offence. It seems apparent to the Appeal Tribunal that Cllr Thomas on his own admission had no viable defence to the criminal charges and a conviction was inevitable. If Cllr Thomas had not self-referred the breach of the Code, an investigation would have followed in any event and may have resulted in a referral of the case by the Ombudsman to the Adjudication Panel for consideration by a ‘Case Tribunal’, not a Standards Committee of the Council. A Case Tribunal has greater powers of sanction than the Standards Committee.
6.3.7 The Appeal Tribunal has applied little weight to these submissions but has recognised and taken them into account. Cllr Thomas did plead guilty to the criminal offence and did self-refer. Appropriate credit must be given for these actions.
6.3.8 The Appeal Tribunal is satisfied that the Standards Committee gave Cllr Thomas every opportunity to substantiate his mitigation during the Standards Committee hearing. The Appeal Tribunal has duly considered the mitigation put to the Standards Committee and to the Appeal Tribunal. The Appeal Tribunal is satisfied that appropriate credit was given by the Standards Committee for the mitigation put forward by Cllr Thomas but that the mitigation was outweighed by other factors of the case including Cllr Thomas’ credibility. The Appeal Tribunal is satisfied that the Standards Committee applied due proportionality having regard to all the facts in deciding on the sanction that should be applied to Cllr Thomas.
6.3.9 The Appeal Tribunal considers that the 6 month suspension imposed by the Standards Committee was not disproportionate in view of the circumstances of the case.
6.3.10 The Appeal Tribunal accordingly decided by unanimous decision to endorse the decision of the Isle of Anglesey County Council’s Standards Committee that Cllr Thomas should be suspended for 6 months.
4 comments:
Now we will see what our other councillors are made of ......
Unless they are 100% united in their condemnation I think the commissioners will have to be recalled.
Interesting times yet again. But this time the power of the law has definitely turned against those who purport 'to serve'.
He was convicted not only of a criminal offence, but more importantly on misappropriating public money.
He shouldn't have been suspended. he should have been disqualified. For life.
Hos releuctance to be frank with the tribunal was probably because he thought the old game was still being played and it would have been "nudge, nudge, wink, wink we''ll say no more about it old boy". Well he's just learnt that those days are over. What he (and pothers) probably doesn't realise yet that when the new system comes into effect at the next elections, competition to be a councillor will have increased to such an extent in each ward that if you know where the skeletons lie in regards to an opponent, you'd be stupid not to go public - because if you don't, and it comes out that you knew and kept quiet, you'll probably lose the seat next time out. And rightly so.
The question remains that, notwithstanding his suspension, why is this criminal being allowed to continue as a councillor at all? It isn't as though he did not already have 'form' and was often the focus of investigation by Paddy French and his team on Wales This Week over recent years along with John Arthur Jones and some of the other 'Usual Suspects'. Another point to consider is that this man after being found guilty of benefit fraud was appointed as chairman of the audit committee - putting the fox in charge of the hen house - has this council not learned anything from recent happenings? Finally Lyn Ball, head of the council legal services and monitoring officer, went on record as strongly supporting Thomas and giving him a glowing testimonial during his trial. Should she among others not consider her postition and do the honourble thing and fall on her sword?
Thanks. I will take a look.
Post a Comment