A CONTROVERSIAL councillor who referenced Adolf Hitler when describing the actions of fellow politicians has succeeded in reducing a ban preventing him from holding office.

Paul Mack was banned from being an elected representative at Renfrewshire Council after making the comments in an email sent to fellow councillors, journalists and staff at the local authority.

A panel convened by the Standards Commission for Scotland concluded that Mr Mack wasn’t a fit person to hold office in May last year and handed him a 16-month ban.

The panel considered an email sent on March 22, 2020, two days after the council’s emergency board met in Paisley at the start of the Covid pandemic.

In the email, independent councillor Mr Mack wrote: “Yesterday’s ‘star chamber’/COBRA meeting of five councillors giving themselves powers which haven’t been seen since Adolf Hitler gave up house painting has left someone who was prepared to give of his time, experience and with the danger of sounding conceited local knowledge and without remuneration – a concept almost all of you will have great difficulty in grasping – somewhat disappointing.”

When one of the councillors who attended the meeting replied to say he took exception to the comments, Mr Mack responded: “In any decent society someone would simply have come round to your hoose, amputated your right arm with a blunt spoon and hit you over the heid with the soggy end, you smug, self-satisfied, precious, pious, puffed-up pompous little p***k.”

Mr Mack also copied in fellow councillors, staff members and journalists in the email.

The Standards Commission for Scotland imposed a ban which disqualified him from sitting as a councillor or standing for the local authority at this year’s elections.

This prompted Mr Mack to instruct Roddy Dunlop QC, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, to go to the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

Mr Dunlop argued that the panel didn’t follow correct legal procedures when making its decision to ban Mr Mack.

Judges Lady Dorrian, Lord Matthews and Lord Doherty heard that the decision breached Mr Mack’s right to freedom of speech – article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr Dunlop also argued that the panel weren’t allowed to make the finding that Mr Mack wasn’t fit to hold office and that the ban should be reduced.

In a written judgment issued by the court today, Lady Dorrian accepted the arguments made by Mr Dunlop and reduced the ban to 10 months.

She also backdated it to May last year, which means Mr Mack will be allowed to stand for office.

Lady Dorrian wrote: “It states that in its view the appellant is unfit for office, and that the period of disqualification reflects that view.

“However, it was not the panel’s remit to decide whether the appellant is fit to hold office. Its remit was to determine the specific complaints which had been made and to impose an appropriate sanction for breaches which were established.

"The panel’s view of the appellant’s fitness was not a relevant consideration when it came to selecting the disqualification period.

“If the panel selected the disqualification which they did in order to prevent the appellant from standing in the 2022 election because they considered him unfit to hold office it misdirected itself.

“We allow the appeal, quash the existing disqualification of 16 months, and substitute a disqualification of 10 months.

“As before, the disqualification runs from 10 May 2021.”

It is not the first time that Mr Mack has came to attention for his public statements.

He once objected to the Labour group at Renfrewshire Council spending £3,000 on a trip to Germany, claiming: "It's tenuous, contorted and contrived. It'll be going on the lash and playing hide the frankfurter."

Mr Mack has also referred to another politician as being “our own SS officer” and compared a woman politician to a "cross between Hyacinth Bucket and Glenn Close just before she boils the rabbit.”

Details of the emails sent by Mr Mack are contained in the judgement.

The opinion also tells of how council staff complained about him using “intemperate” and “abusive language” at the local authority.

Lord Keen of Elie QC, the former Advocate General, argued that the Standards Commission for Scotland panel acted correctly in making its decision. However, the judges rejected this.