Court challenge over councillor conduct case raises free speech concerns

Glasgow Labour councillor Fiona Higgins has secured permission to bring a judicial review against the Standards Commission for Scotland at the Court of Session, after a dispute over the handling of evidence in misconduct proceedings against her.

The case arises from events at Glasgow City Council, where Ms Higgins was reported to ethics authorities following public comments she made about proposals to cut up to 450 teaching posts. She had alleged that councillors and the public were being misled over the plans, prompting a complaint from former council finance chief Martin Booth.

Central to the legal challenge is the commission’s refusal to admit certain evidence Ms Higgins sought to rely on in her defence, which it deemed “irrelevant”. Her legal team argues that the exclusion undermines her ability to receive a fair hearing.

Granting permission for the case to proceed, Lord Sandison found there was an arguable basis for the claim, allowing the matter to move to a full hearing. Judicial review is only permitted where the court is satisfied that a case has a real prospect of success and that no alternative remedy is available.

Ms Higgins’ solicitor advocate, Professor Peter Watson, said the disputed material was essential to addressing the allegations. “These productions are clearly relevant,” he said. “To deny their inclusion is to deny a fair opportunity to answer the case.”

The dispute has drawn wider attention to how the Standards Commission handles complaints, particularly where elected representatives raise concerns in the public interest. Critics argue the case may expose broader issues in the treatment of dissenting voices within public bodies.

The controversy comes against the backdrop of a contentious budget debate in Glasgow, where proposals to reduce teaching posts prompted strong opposition. Ms Higgins’ comments, which were shared on social media, led to the complaint that triggered the current proceedings.

She has framed the case as a matter of principle, arguing that access to justice is beyond the reach of many councillors. “The reality is that many councillors simply cannot afford to challenge decisions like this,” she said. “That effectively puts justice out of reach.”

Ms Higgins added: “I’m pleased that the Court of Session has allowed my case to go forward.”

The legal action is being funded by businessman Paul McManus, who has criticised the process in strong terms. “The irony is this is about free speech,” he said. “Yet the system appears to be preventing her from even putting forward the evidence she needs to defend herself.”

The Standards Commission has not yet set out its response but is expected to argue that decisions on the admissibility of evidence fall within its remit and that its procedures are lawful.

The forthcoming hearing will examine whether the exclusion of evidence breached principles of fairness. Its outcome could have wider implications for how complaints against councillors are handled and for the balance between regulatory oversight and freedom of expression in public life.