![AC-2023-LON-002171 - [2024] EWHC 132 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Outcome
For the reasons that I have set out above, I do not consider that the PCC’s decision was wrong, unjust or that it involved any procedural or other irregularity. I have explained why I reject both Ground 1, concerning the Committee’s decision to admit the hearsay evidence in Schedule C, and Ground 2, relating to the dishonesty allegations that were found proved. In the circumstances, Ground 3, regarding the sanction imposed, does not arise. This was a careful and detailed decision; charges were considered individually, the evidence in respect of each was evaluated and the PCC’s reasoning was clear and thorough.
It follows that I dismiss the appeal.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Facts and circumstances and the PCC’s findings
- The GDS contract and FP17
- The charges and the outcomes
- The evidence before the PCC
- The evidence, submissions and ruling in relation to Schedule C
- The submissions and the legal advice received
- The PCC’s ruling
- The PCC’s reasoning in respect of the material charges
- Charge 3
- Charge 4(c)
- Charge 4(e)(1)
- Charge 5(b)
- Charge 5(c)
- Charge 5(g)
- Charge 6(a)
- Charges 6(b)(2) and 6(e)
- Charge 6(f)
- Charge 7(a)
- Charges 7(b) – 7(g)
- Charge 17(b)
- The legal framework
- Dishonesty
- Hearsay evidence
- The Appellant’s submissions
- Ground 2
- Charge 5(g)
- Charge 17(b)
- Discussion and conclusions
- The PCC’s exercise of its discretion
- Ground 2
- Charge 5(g)
- Charge 17(b)
- Conclusions