BBC BLOGS - Barling's London
« Previous|Main|Next »

Should errant councillors stay or go?

Post categories:

Kurt Barling|17:43 UK time, Tuesday, 22 February 2011

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.



The London Borough of Southwark is the latest council to face an embarrassing electoral conundrum.

For different reasons three serving Labour Councillors have within the space of a few months had their legitimacy questioned because they have either allegedly or actually fallen foul of the law.

All three councillors have been asked to resign; only one has. In theory the other two can remain in post until the next local elections in 2014.

John Friary, a councillor since 1994, was arrested two weeks ago by the Metropolitan Police's paedophile unit. It's alleged that he was involved in the internet grooming of teenage girls and police are continuing their investigations.

Councillor Friary resigned from his position straight away and there will be a by-election sometime in March. Council Leader Peter John moved swiftly to encourage Friary's departure and told me the councillor had done the right thing.

It's just as well because it is very difficult to remove a sitting councillor as Southwark leaders had already found out shortly before this case came to light.

Councillor Keadean Rhoden was convicted of housing benefit fraud in November and was immediately suspended from the Labour Group. Despite being sentenced to 200 hours community service Cllr Rhoden is perfectly within her rights not to stand down from office and has so far elected to stay on.

And as if all that wasn't enough to give the Labour Group a nasty headache, I discovered councillor Stephen Govier have failed to declare a six year conviction for a serious crime he'd committed in California in 1997.

Initially councillor Govier defended his decision not to tell the Labour Party selectors about his conviction because he says he didn't think it was relevant. Then he argued, correctly, that because the conviction was more than 5 years before he put himself forward as a candidate, he was not disqualified from standing.

Finally he acknowledged his crime but suggested that he had shot an intruder who entered his home.

Let's get the facts straight. According to Los Angeles County court records, Councillor Govier was initially charged with attempted murder and conspiracy to supply cocaine.

Stephen Govier shot an acquaintance of five years, who he had previously supplied cocaine to, whilst he himself was under the influence of a cocktail of cocaine and vodka.

His victim was shot in the head with a handgun and remained in hospital for 27 days.
Govier spent from June 1997 until June 24th 2002 behind bars on a serious felony charge of assault with a firearm.

This charge was negotiated as part of a plea bargain in turn for pleading guilty. Govier was deported from the US the day he was released from prison.

If Govier's crime had been committed in the UK he would have a permanent criminal record registered here. He would always have to declare his conviction because any offence which carries a custodial term of over 30 months can never be spent.
It raises the question of why someone with a serious conviction overseas would be allowed to stand for election.

The reality is that there is no adequate vetting procedure for candidates and the whole system depends on truthfulness.

When individuals like Stephen Govier return from overseas and are less than truthful, there is little that can be done to flag up overseas convictions. In fact there is no vetting for councillors full stop.

And if, as in Councillor Govier's case, an errant councillor is belatedly found out, there is very little in law that can be done to remove them from elected office.

He's been asked to resign. He has refused. Despite repeated attempts to reach Cllr Govier to ask him about why he thinks he should given the gravity of his crime and the failure to declare it he has not responded.

In a previous statement he told us:

"Over recent years I have committed my life to working in and for the community, and I believe in a fair and equal opportunity and future for all. The better to achieve these ideals it is my desire to continue to work conscientiously and in the interest of my constituents to create a fairer future for all in Southwark."

Southwark Council has now written to the Department for Communities & Local Government (DCLG) asking for the law to be reviewed to make it absolutely clear when someone should declare an overseas conviction and asking for local authority powers to remove someone from office when they are in clear breach of selection rules.

DCLG have told me they will be urgently reviewing the law.

The Local Government Minister Bob Neill added:

"There is a strong argument for this councillor to resign, as he would be disqualified if the crime had been committed in Britain."

Until then only councillors Govier and Rhoden can decide whether to stay or go.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    Councillor Govier has been a very effectively local councillor and it is on that that he should be judged. Peter John should maybe spend a little more time talking to his constituents rather than the BBC.

    The BBC should maybe try to distinguish fact from opinion. It is the practice in the US to initially charge with more serious offenses that have no chance of a successful conviction in order to obtain the maximum bail security, so initial charges often mean very little.

    I am also confused regarding the comments about having to declare these convictions should they have been committed in the UK. My understanding is that there is no obligation to proactively declare convictions where not requested to do so in this job or many others. The report is unclear on this point, it states that he has been 'less than truthful', which suggests he has lied. Apparently he has not.

    We have a phrase 'repay your debt to society'. It is commonly viewed that the purpose of a prison sentence is to do just that.

    I for one am not prepared to subsidise a life on benefits for anyone who has been to prison. Once they have done their time, they should go out into the world once more, get a job and pay taxes. Clearly there are some sensitive jobs that these people would not be suitable for - this is not one of them and there is no issue here.

    Today of all days, lets focus on why councillor John is choosing to implement horrific cuts in Southwark, far in excess of those required.

  • Comment number 2.

    Surely Mr Govier is the embodyment of rehabilitation. He has done his time for the offence he committed we should be celebrating that he has been able to make good of a life that went off the rails. I thought that is what the criminal justice system strived to do.

    As for an 'errant' councillor, he is truth be told a very good one.

    He has clearly moved on, perhaps the BBC should as well.

    This is a rehash of a story that didn't really grab the headlines before. How many times are the BBC going to rework it before finding someone else's life to ruin?

BBC © 2014The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.