Hare v Marcar & Anor [2006] EWHC 82 (Admin) (26 January 2006)

Hare v Marcar & Anor [2006] EWHC 82 (Admin) (26 January 2006)

The Tribunal was entitled to impose a six-month suspension given the seriousness of the appellant's unfounded allegations of criminal conduct against senior council officers, his failure to apologise, and the risk of repetition. The penalty was not plainly wrong or excessive, and there was no procedural unfairness.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 82 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Anthony Connal Hare; Respondent: Nick Marcar; Interveners: Bedford Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 79(15) of the Local Government Act 2000 / Judgment on Appeal Against Suspension Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Code of Conduct for Councillors, Standards Board for England, Suspension of Councillors, Procedural Fairness, Sanctions for Misconduct
Administrative Law Local Government Law Code of Conduct for Councillors Standards Board for England Suspension of Councillors Procedural Fairness Sanctions for Misconduct

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Connal Hare

Appellant

Nick Marcar

Respondent

Bedford Borough Council

Interveners

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Section 79(15) of the Local Government Act 2000 / Judgment on Appeal Against Suspension Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the six-month suspension imposed on the appellant for breach of the Code of Conduct was excessive or procedurally flawed
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in its assessment of aggravating factors and risk of future breach

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to impose a six-month suspension given the seriousness of the appellant's unfounded allegations of criminal conduct against senior council officers, his failure to apologise, and the risk of repetition. The penalty was not plainly wrong or excessive, and there was no procedural unfairness.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal against the six-month suspension is dismissed.