Re and Local Government Standards Panel - [2011] WASAT 108

RE and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL [2011] WASAT 108

Last Update: 18/07/2011

RE and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL [2011] WASAT 108
Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2011] WASAT 108
Act:	LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 (WA)
Case No:	DR:27/2011	Heard:	21 APRIL 2011
Coram:	JUDGE T SHARP (DEPUTY PRESIDENT)	Delivered:	13/07/2011
No of Pages:	18	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Decision of the Local Government Standards Panel affirmed
Category:	B
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	ELIZABETH RE LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Catchwords:	Local government Standards of behaviour expected of a council Appropriate sanction for minor breach of Local Government Act 1995 (WA) Breach of reg 7(1)(b) Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 (WA) Public apology
Legislation:	Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 (WA), reg 4, reg 7, reg 7(1)(b) Local Government Act 1995 (WA), s 5.103(1), s 5.104, s 5.105, s 5.105(1), s 5.106, s 5.107, s 5.108, s 5.109, s 5.110, s 5.110(6)(b), s 5.21(3) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 31(1)
Case References:	Treby and Local Government Standards Panel [2010] WASAT 81
Orders:	On the application determined by Deputy President, Judge Sharp on 13 July 2011, it is ordered that: 1. The decision of the Standards Panel made on 22 December 2010 that the applicant had committed a minor breach of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) by contravening reg 7(1)(b) of the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 (WA) is affirmed. 2. The Orders of the Local Government Standards Panel made on 22 December 2010 in relation to the sanction to be imposed on the applicant for the minor breach she committed are affirmed save that the time for compliance with Order 2 is the next City of Stirling Ordinary Council Meeting immediately following the date of delivery of these Reasons for Decision and the time for compliance with Order 3, if applicable, is a date within 14 days of the date of that Meeting.
Summary:	Councillor Elizabeth Re is a member of the City of Stirling Council. She applied to the Tribunal for a review of a decision of the Local Government Standards Panel which required her to apologise in relation to some comments which she made about two other councillors in an email which she sent to certain local residents following a formal meeting of the Council. The Standards Panel found that the comments constituted a breach of the Council's Code of Conduct and reg 7(1)(b) of the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 (WA). Councillor Re argued that she had sent the email as a private citizen, not as a councillor, that she did not intend to cause detriment to any person, and in any event that her comments did not extend beyond what was already a matter of public record. The Tribunal agreed with the Standards Panel that the comments in the email were made as a council member, were an improper use of Councillor Re's office…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re and Local Government Standards Panel and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] WASAT 108
Decision Date: 13 JULY 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re and the Local Government Standards Panel, the respondent, Mr. Scott, appealed a decision made by the Panel to impose a public apology on him as a sanction for a minor breach of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA). The Panel had found that Mr. Scott breached regulation 7(1)(b) of the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 (WA). The Full Court of the State Administrative Tribunal was tasked with reviewing the Panel's decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Panel had correctly exercised its discretion in imposing a public apology as a sanction for the minor breach of conduct. The court had to consider the appropriate sanctions for minor breaches under the Local Government Act and whether the Panel's decision was within the scope of its statutory powers. The court also had to assess whether the public apology was a suitable and proportionate sanction for the breach.

The court determined that the Panel had correctly exercised its discretion in imposing the public apology. The court held that the Panel had the authority to impose a public apology for a minor breach of conduct and that such a sanction was within the range of appropriate responses under the Local Government Act. The court found that the public apology was a suitable and proportionate sanction, given the nature of the breach and the need to uphold public confidence in local government. The court further noted that the Panel had considered the relevant factors, including the seriousness of the breach and the potential impact on the community, when making its decision.

The Full Court affirmed the decision of the Local Government Standards Panel, concluding that the Panel had appropriately imposed a public apology as a sanction for the minor breach of conduct. The court's decision underscores the importance of upholding standards of behaviour expected of council members and the appropriate use of sanctions to maintain public confidence in local government.

Orders

Orders of the court

Decision of the Local Government Standards Panel affirmed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.