Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support
Minutes:
The Chair welcomed everyone to
the meeting. In line with recent
legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any
representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by
audio call or by written submission. For
this hearing the Applicant requested that he be permitted to attend the meeting
from the Council Chamber. This was
agreed to and he was joined by Officers to facilitate his attendance to address
the Committee by video call.
Police Scotland opted to proceed
by way of audio call and Sergeant David Holmes joined the meeting by telephone.
The Chair referred to a
preliminary matter and advised that Police Scotland had requested the Committee
take account of number of a number of matters which were considered “spent” in
terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. It was noted that the Committee may take into
consideration evidence relating to “spent” matters where they are satisfied
that justice could not be done except by admitting such evidence.
The Chair outlined the procedure
that would be followed in this respect and invited Police Scotland to address
the relevancy of the “spent” matters.
POLICE SCOTLAND
Sergeant Holmes advised that the
Applicant had a number of matters which were considered “spent” in terms of the
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and that it was the Chief Constable’s
contention that justice could not be done in this case except by admitting
evidence relating to these “spent matters”.
The Chair then invited the
Applicant to ask Police Scotland questions and to address the relevancy of the
“spent” matters to his application.
APPLICANT
Mr Judson said that he did not
believe the “spent” convictions had anything do with his application and that
he did not think they were relevant. He
intimated that he would not have a problem with discussing them if it was
decided that they should be disclosed.
Mr Judson then read out a
statement explaining the circumstances of his medical condition Attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in order to give the Committee some
insight into the difficulties that he now has and how it affects his life on a
daily basis. He also advised of his
qualifications, volunteering work, and other licences held which were relevant
to his application. He advised that his
medical condition was managed by medication and the support of family and
friends. He referred to the Police
objection and he explained the background to this. He said that his mother had called the Police
in the hope that they could have helped calm him down but they came and took
him away. He commented that the Chief
Constable’s assertion that he was not a fit and proper person had left him
feeling worthless and a lost cause. He
said that he has never behaved inappropriately towards any member of the public
or work colleague and advised that he was ashamed of his past. He said he was not a bad person and that he
just got overwhelmed at times.
The Chair invited Police Scotland
to comment on the Applicant’s submission and Sergeant Holmes confirmed that he
had nothing further to add.
The Chair then invited Members to
ask questions and determine the relevancy of the “spent” convictions.
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS AND DEBATE
Councillor Wallace sought and
received confirmation from Mr Judson that the first “spent” conviction was
dated 1988 and the last was dated 2013.
Councillor McCabe sought and
received confirmation from Mr Judson that there were 10 “spent” convictions.
Councillor Howard asked Mr Judson
if any of the “spent” convictions directly related to his business. Mr Judson advised that most of them had
happened when he was young and before he was diagnosed. He said that he had never been in trouble
working for other people or himself.
Councillor Hardie advised that as
there were 10 “spent” convictions he thought it was essential that the
Committee hear about them.
Councillor Green agreed that it
would be helpful to hear the detail of these.
The Committee agreed that justice
could not be done without admitting the “spent” convictions into the process
due to the number of them spanning a number of years. A letter dated 6 February 2023 from the Chief
Constable outlining the detail of the “spent” convictions was circulated.
After a brief adjournment the
Chair outlined the hearing procedure that would be followed and invited the
Applicant to speak in support of his application.
APPLICANT
Mr Judson referred to the detail
of each “spent” conviction in turn. He
said there was no excuse for them. He
explained that he was young and foolish and, without being diagnosed with ADHD
at that time, he was easily led and influenced.
He said that he had grown up in a little village which was an ex mining
community. He advised that once the
collieries closed down this led to a lot of unemployment in the community and
in the majority of these cases the children suffered for it. He said that it has taken a lot of time for
him to look into his past and understand his behaviours. He referred to travelling to school by bus
and being bullied by 7 children from the same family. He had to travel on this bus with these
children for 10 years and in order to try and stop the bullying he took the
easy route and tried to fit in with them.
He advised that his parents were good parents. He said that his father drank every night of
the week except Christmas. He advised
that the first thing he looked forward to when he turned 18 was to stand at a
bar and drink a pint. He said he started
to be institutionalised and did not seem able to fit in with the good kids that
were from the area he lived. He said he
got in with the wrong crowd. He
commented that his mum had been a nurse and when she worked nights he would be
out till 2 am as a young child getting up to no good.
Referring to the earlier
convictions he said he disputed the assault on a Constable. He said that none of these offences were
physically violent and that they were little more than arguments which, he
said, was why he questioned their relevancy.
He said that he wanted to set up the burger van to get a better life and
advised that the Police wanted to make things sound far worse. He referred to the justice system encouraging
people to plead guilty to speed up the process.
He referred to his conviction on
25 January 2023 and explained the circumstances of it. He said that he had pled guilty on the advice
of his solicitor. He advised that he was
told that if he pled not guilty he would not get home. He said that he had punched a wall as he was
angry at himself. He said that his wife
could confirm that he was not violent.
Mrs Judson confirmed that her husband had not been aggressive towards her
on that occasion and that he never had been.
He said that Oban Police, knowing his medical condition, had not taken
that into account and that he felt his treatment by them was cruel and
barbaric.
He referred to the most recent
incident on 2 February 2023 and commented that Lochgilphead Police Officers had
been very kind and said that the case would not be taken any further. He said he was shocked to find that he had
been reported to the Procurator Fiscal and that the letter from the Chief
Constable stated that it could be reasonably inferred that he intended to
commit a crime.
He questioned what the difference
would be to him working in McDonald’s or having his own business. He referred to his catering van which he
said he had spent nearly £30,000 on, the report from Environmental Health, and
all the certificates he had in place to carry out his business. Mr Judson read out a reference from a
previous employer at Tralee Holiday Park in Benderloch, which stated that Mr
Judson proved to be a reliable, conscientious employee, able to work alone or
as part of a team as required and that there would be no hesitation in
recommending him as a good employee.
Mr Judson said that he was a fit
and proper person and had done everything he had been asked to do. He said that he was quite able and always put
110% into any task. He said he hoped to
employ someone to assist him. He added
that he had been drinking when all of the offences had taken place and that he
had now stopped drinking.
QUESTIONS FROM POLICE
Sergeant Holmes confirmed that he
had no questions.
POLICE SCOTLAND
Sergeant Holmes advised that Mr
Judson had covered the detail of all his convictions and that he had nothing
further to add. He commented that if Mr
Judson felt he had not been treated well by the Police he could raise a
complaint with them.
QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT
Mr Judson said he had no
questions.
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS
Councillor Brown referred to Mr
Judson advising that all of his convictions related to drink and that he had
now stopped drinking. She said that she
hoped that he would continue to stop drinking.
She said that she appreciated what he had said about his ADHD and about
getting angry and frustrated. She
advised that she would have a concern about Mr Judson working in the burger van
if a customer became obstructive and annoyed him and this led to him losing his
temper. She asked Mr Judson what he
could say to alleviate her worries. Mr
Judson said that the customer was always right.
He referred to the reference he read and advised that his job had
involved taking bookings up to 10 pm, visiting people in their rented caravans
and calling on private owners. He said
that he had only drank in his personal life and never in his working life. He said that he had stopped drinking and
intended to keep it that way. He advised
that he had used alcohol to rest his mind.
He said that when it came to work he was entirely professional.
Councillor Wallace referred to Mr
Judson advising that some of the convictions were arguments and not
assaults. He asked Sergeant Holmes to
comment. Sergeant Holmes advised that
some of these convictions went back several years and that he did not have the
Procurator Fiscal reports as they were English convictions. He referred to the assault in Oban at the
Oyster Bar and said that Mr Judson was charged with a physical assault.
Councillor McCabe sought and
received confirmation from Mr Judson that it had been about 8 weeks since he
had stopped drinking. He said he was not
addicted to alcohol and that he had just used it to de-stress.
Councillor Armour sought and
received confirmation from Mr Judson that he was first diagnosed with ADHD when
he was 39 or 40 years old.
Councillor Martin referred to Mr
Judson drawing comparisons between working for himself and working for a
company. She asked Mr Judson if he felt,
with his treatment and medications, he would be able to cope with the added
stress of working for himself. Mr Judson
advised that he had worked for himself most of his life.
Councillor Hardie asked Mr Judson
how the mental health team felt about him starting up this business. He asked if they were supportive. Mr Judson said that his Community Psychiatric
Nurse (CPN) thought this would be a good thing.
He referred to being trapped in his house and that he needed something
to keep his mind occupied. He said that
due to his ADHD, when he did anything, he always gave 150%.
Councillor Hardie asked Mr Judson
if the licence was granted, would his CPN support him if things got
difficult. Mr Judson said yes and that
his CPN would be happy to provide a report if required.
SUMMING UP
Police Scotland
Sergeant Holmes advised that he
had nothing further to add.
Applicant
Mr Judson said he just wanted the
chance to get on with his life and that he was sorry for the nuisance he had
caused.
When asked, both parties confirmed
that they had received a fair hearing.
DEBATE
Councillor Hardie said that it
had been an interesting hearing. He
referred to Mr Judson’s criminal record being slightly concerning but said that
it filled him with confidence that Mr Judson had the support of the mental
health team and, with that in mind, he would be happy to grant the licence.
Councillor Brown commented that
since Mr Judson had been diagnosed his last “spent” conviction was in 2013 and
that there had been nothing further up until now. She referred to the tough time Mr Judson had
gone through in his personal life recently, including the death of this father
and the stress and strain of looking after his elderly mother in his home. She said she hoped that now his mother was
moving into a home Mr Judson would be able to get back to normal family
life. She commented on the support he
received from the mental health team, his medications, and his attitude, and
said she would second Councillor Hardie’s comments and would be happy to grant
this licence.
Councillor McCabe said that she
took a different view. She said there
was too much here and felt there would be a big risk if Mr Judson happened to
have a drink and someone was angry at him while working. She said she was not convinced this would
work.
Councillor Howard said she would
like to give Mr Judson the chance. She
advised that being back at work and having to keep a van going and organising
everything, she felt that this would keep Mr Judson from straying more than
anything. She suggested granting a
licence for 6 months to try it out.
Councillor Kain said that he
agreed that everyone needed a chance. He
advised that in this case there had been too many repeats. He referred to the last incidents occurring
in January and February this year which, he said, was not long ago. He referred to Mr Judson being diagnosed for
some considerable time and questioned on what basis he was referred and if this
had been connected to the convictions.
He also referred to the definition of common assault.
Councillor Armour referred to the
detail provided by Mr Judson and the difficulties he had overcome. He commented that it must have been very
difficult for Mr Judson to go over that today.
He acknowledged that Mr Judson had been very open, but advised that he
did have concerns about granting the licence.
He asked if it would be possible to get a report from the mental health
team that could give the Committee some confidence that the licence could be
granted. He also advised that he would
support the suggestion by Councillor Howard of granting the licence for 6
months. He asked if there was a
possibility of getting this report and of granting the licence initially for 6
months as he was keen to award the licence to Mr Judson.
Councillor Brown referred to the
length of time between convictions. She
pointed out that it had been nearly 10 years since the last “spent” conviction.
Councillor Martin asked whether
the mental health team had been supporting Mr Judson before the most recent conviction
and alleged offence. She said it would
be reassuring to get a mental health report.
Councillor McCabe commented that
although it had been 9 years since the last “spent” conviction, there had
already been 2 convictions this year within a very short timeframe.
The Committee Manager, Mr McLean,
pointed out to Councillor McCabe that there had only been one conviction this
year, not two.
Councillor Green asked if it
would be possible for the Committee to adjourn until a mental health report was
received. Mr McLean said that there
would be nothing to prevent the Committee continuing consideration of this
application and invited the Council’s Senior Solicitor to comment. Mrs MacFadyen advised that there would be
nothing to prevent the Committee continuing the hearing in order to seek a
report. She pointed out that the
Applicant would need to give his consent to the Committee receiving this
report. Mrs MacFadyen also confirmed
that the Committee could grant the licence for a shorter period if they felt
this was appropriate.
Councillor Armour suggested that
the Committee should continue this hearing
that if Mr Judson contact the Social Work team to obtain a report and
forward this to the Legal Team or subsequent consideration by the Committee.
Councillor Green advised that before
doing this it would be worth checking with Mr Judson if he would be happy with
that report being asked for. Mr Judson
confirmed that his only concern was regarding permission he had received from
Mull and Iona Community Trust to pitch his van on their land for the season
which was about to start on 1 April 2023.
He said he had no objection to the request for the report and he would
have no objection to the licence being granted for a shorter period. He advised that he did have a concern that he
could lose the pitch if he was not able to start on 1 April. He commented that he had never drank during
employment and that if he misbehaved he would lose the pitch.
Mrs MacFadyen pointed out that if
the licence was granted today it would be 28 days before it would come into
force due to the Police objection.
Councillor Hardie said he would
like to see the mental health report before granting the licence. He suggested that if Mr Judson explained the
situation to the land owner they would understand the delay.
Councillor Armour asked Mrs
MacFadyen if it would be possible to grant the licence today, request the
report from Social Work for consideration at the April meeting of the PPSL, and
if it was felt at that stage it was not suitable to grant the licence, it could
be revoked at the April meeting. Mrs
MacFadyen said that would not be competent as the Committee should only grant
the licence today if they believed that Mr Judson was a fit and proper person.
Councillor Howard said she would
like to grant the licence for 6 months and also get the report to reassure the
Committee. She said that 6 months would
give Mr Judson the chance to settle down and establish himself.
Mrs MacFadyen said that if the
Committee were satisfied that Mr Judson was a fit and proper person they could
grant the licence today. She advised
that it would not be competent to grant a licence subject to a report being
provided.
Councillor Martin sought and
received confirmation from Mrs MacFadyen that the Committee could grant the licence
for 6 months or get a report first.
Councillor Armour confirmed that
he would like the hearing to be continued to April and in the interim period
ask for a report to come from Social Work.
Decision
The Committee agreed to continue
consideration of this Application to the next meeting in April 2023 and to
request the Applicant submit a report from his health care provider to the
Legal Team for consideration at the next meeting.
(Reference: Report by Head of
Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted)