Return to Agenda

Division(s): N/A

ITEM ST8

STANDARDS COMMITTEE – 1 DECEMBER 2006

SUMMARY OF CASE STUDIES

County Solicitor & Monitoring Officer

Disrepute

  1. "A Member must not in his or her official capacity, or any other circumstance, conduct him or herself in a manner which would reasonably be regarded as bringing his Office or Authority into disrepute" (paragraph 4 Code of Conduct)

  2. Advice Note: The circumstances must be sufficiently proximate to, or reasonably be capable of being linked to or having a bearing on, the official capacity (Coleman).

    3. Councillor Sloam, London Borough of Barnet

  3. Councillor Sloam sought to use his position improperly when he tried to renew a disabled drivers permit that did not belong to him and used Council paper when he wrote to another Authority asking for the penalty charge on his vehicle to be withdrawn because of the permit.

  4. The attempt to defraud another Authority of money that it was entitled to was a serious matter. The Ethical Standards Officer considered that a member of the public would regard this behaviour of bringing the Authority into disrepute. In addition, using Council stationery when he asked for exemption on the penalty charge was a clear instance of him improperly using his position to obtain an advantage. Councillor Sloam denied that he had used the Council stationery improperly because this was his personal papers and he was simply using his official title when attempting to renew the permit because Officers should know who they were speaking to. The Adjudication Panel regarded the case as proven and constituted a serious breach which would normally have warranted a two year disqualification but was reduced to one year having received accounts of testimonials presented on Councillor Sloam’s behalf. Councillor Sloam appealed against the decision to the High Court but it was dismissed.

    5. Councillor Myers-Hewitt, Stowmarket Town Council

  5. Councillor Myers-Hewitt made a racist comment to a Librarian at a public library "have aliens landed or is it an invasion of darkies? – I suppose they are emailing their friends". This remark was directed at two couples in the Library at the time. Whilst Ethical Standards Officers considered that Councillor Myers-Hewitt’s conduct brought his Office or Authority into disrepute the Adjudication Panel’s case tribunal was not satisfied that there was a sufficient link between his behaviour in a Library and his official role. He was regarded as being "off duty" at the time and the fact that a Librarian knew he was a Councillor was not, in the Tribunal’s opinion, enough to establish a link. The Tribunal noted the conduct itself involved the use of offensive words, but not any criminal offence. The Tribunal considered that the remark was not racially motivated but was made as an attempt at a poor joke and, therefore, did not regard him as bringing his Office or Authority into disrepute and did not breach the Code of Conduct.

    6. Councillor Heather Judge, Lincolnshire County Council

    Councillor Morris Judge, Boston Borough Council

  6. It was alleged that Councillor Morris Judge was drunk at a Housing Association meeting when he was acting in an official capacity by representing Boston Borough Council. It was alleged that Councillor Judge drove home from the meeting whilst under the influence of alcohol and was arrested by the Police. He was subsequently found guilty and the Adjudication Panel decided that his conduct had brought his Office and Authority into disrepute. The Tribunal also considered that both instances were related to Councillor Judge’s official duties and that attending the meeting under the influence of alcohol was likely to impair his physical and mental capacities and to diminish confidence in both his Office and Authority.

  7. The Tribunal took into account his long and hitherto unblemished history of public service and the fact that Councillor Judge accepted full responsibility for his behaviour and had attended a rehabilitation course and had resigned from post within the County Council’s outside bodies. However, the Tribunal considered that Councillor Judge’s conduct was serious and had caused substantial harm to his reputation and that of his Authority and decided to disqualify Councillor Judge for one year.

  8. Councillor Heather Judge, the wife of the above Councillor had to attend the Police Station to pick her husband up. She was breathalysed as she was driving away from the local Police Office and failed to give a sample after three attempts and failed again when taken into the Police Station. She was charged with the road traffic offence of failing to provide a breath sample and pleaded guilty and subsequently pleaded guilty at the Magistrates Court, being banned from driving for 18 months. The Adjudication Panel decided that Councillor Judge had brought her Office and Authority into disrepute, particularly as she failed to uphold the law by not giving a sample. Whilst there were a number of mitigating circumstances to take into account, particularly as she had not intended to drive, and was distressed at the time of the incident in light of her husband’s arrest and also the fact that she was not acting in an official capacity. Councillor Heather Judge could not be suspended as she was no longer a Member of the Council and the Tribunal considered that disqualification would be excessive. The Case Tribunal, therefore, decided not to impose any sanction.

    9.   Disrespect

  9. A member must treat others with respect (paragraph 2(b) Code of Conduct)

  10. "Unfair, unreasonable or demeaning behaviour directed by one person against the other".

  11. Advice Note: This does not apply to "unidentified members of a class or classes of person not present, who may take offence at language or conduct, not specifically directed at them" (Thomson).

    12. Councillor Sanders – Peterborough City Council

  12. It was alleged that Councillor Sanders failed to treat others with respect and brought his Office or Authority into disrepute by making offensive and insensitive comments about the people of Northern Ireland and a dead Royal Irish Regiment Solider. Whilst Leader of the City Council he responded to a letter to the Chief Executive of Carrick Fergus Borough Council about the death of the soldier and repeated similar comments in interview with the local media. The insensitive comments, included: "members of the Armed Forces do get killed, be it by accident or design. That is what they are paid for". Demanding an apology from Northern Ireland for the hundreds of British Policeman and Soldiers that have been killed and stating that he was "fed up paying taxes to cover the lazy Irish". The Case Tribunal regarded Councillor Sanders’ comments as deeply disrespectful, insensitive and offensive, particularly by the family of the soldier, made worse by the fact that he continued to stand by his comments. He was disqualified for two years. High Court Appeal reduced the sanction to one year suspension from holding Office as Leader of the Council.

    13. Confidentiality

  13. "A Member must not disclose information given to him in confidence by anyone, or information acquired which he believes is of a confidential nature, without the consent of a person authorised to give it or unless he is required by law to do so" (paragraph 3(a) Code of Conduct.

    14. Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, Westminster City Council

  14. The allegation concerned Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg leaking confidential documents about the Council’s ex-leader Dame Shirley Porter to the BBC. It concerned the Council’s attempts to recover £27 million in compensation from Dame Porter for gerrymandering. It was also alleged that Councillor Dimoldenberg failed to admit to Council Officers that he had disclosed this information. The Councillor claimed that he disclosed the information to the Journalist on the basis that it was not to be published but only used as background information and he had acted in the public interest in helping the Council to recover the money from Dame Shirley. The Ethical Standards Officer considered that by disclosing confidential information he brought his Office or Authority into disrepute and referred the matter to the Adjudication Panel for determination by a Tribunal. The Case Tribunal ruled that the European Convention on Human Rights meant that paragraph 3(a) of the Code of Conduct should be interpreted so that, in the right circumstances, a Member might disclose "confidential" information without it being a breach of the Code. It was a matter for the Ethical Standards Officer to establish that on the balance of probabilities it was in the public interest that certain confidential information remained outside the public domain. The Tribunal found that Councillor Dimoldenberg was not acting in the public interest when he passed this information on. The High Court had made a restriction on Communication Orders to prevent the disclosure of information about the Council’s attempt to recover the money and the Case Tribunal regarded these as proportionate restrictions on freedom of expression given the ability of Dame Shirley Porter to move money out of the reach of the Council. The Tribunal decided that Councillor Dimoldenberg failed to comply with the Code of Conduct by disclosing confidential information.

  15. The Case Tribunal did, however, find that Councillor Dimoldenberg had not brought his Office or Authority into disrepute by failing to admit the breach. The Tribunal believed that an individual was entitled to deny an allegation of breaching the Code of Conduct and it considered that there was scant evidence that Councillor Dimoldenberg’s disclosure of confidential information brought his Office or Authority into disrepute. He had not gained financially or politically by his actions and the disclosure did not harm the Council’s recovery process. Therefore, no sanction was imposed.

    16. Councillor Alan Melton, Fenland District Council

  16. Councillor Alan Melton was Leader of the Council at the time and disclosed to the Press a copy of a draft report of the Ethical Standards Officer investigation into alleged misconduct against the Councillor himself. The Councillor admitted disclosing the information but denied that such conduct brought his Office or Authority into disrepute but the Adjudication Panel regarded the confidentiality that attached to draft reports as being important and, therefore, disclosure a serious breach of the Code of Conduct. The Leader of the Council is expected to set an example and as such he had brought his Office or Authority into disrepute and 4 months suspension was imposed.

  17. Councillor Colleen Gill, East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Elloughton cum Brough Parish Council

  18. Councillor Gill wrote to an MP claiming that Social Workers had been unfair to an individual involved in a child protection case and disclosed sensitive information concerning the case to the MP. Councillor Gill compromised the impartiality of Council employees, disclosed confidential information without permission and thereby bringing her Office or Authority into disrepute and misused her position as a Member to confer an advantage on another person. The Tribunal considered that Councillor Gill should have sought advice about the disclosure of the sensitive information relating to the case although they did not find that she had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct in respect of this technically difficult area. Councillor Gill was disqualified for one year which was set aside with a three month suspension substituted by the High Court.

    19. Personal and Prejudicial Interests

  19. "Policy of promoting transparency in Local Government that lies at the heart of the Code’s drafting".

  20. "The public’s confidence in Local Government is to a great extent dependent on its perception of the probity of its Members".

  21. "A Member with a prejudicial interest in any matter must withdraw from the room or chamber where a meeting is being held whenever it becomes apparent that the matter is being considered at that meeting" and that he must "not seek improperly to influence the decision about that matter" (paragraph 10 Code of Conduct)

    22. Councillor Martin Murphy, Dartford Borough Council

  22. Councillor Murphy became a Director of a company in October 2003 but did not notify the Monitoring Officer of the change in his interests until 30 June 2005. The Tribunal, therefore, decided that Councillor Murphy failed to comply with the Code of Conduct by failing to update his register of interests. Councillor Murphy also had a personal and prejudicial interest in a Committee Meeting as he was the Project Director of a project and a Director of a company that aimed to restore the village hall, which was one of the potential beneficiaries of funding discussed at the meeting. The Tribunal, therefore, decided that Councillor Murphy failed to comply with the Code of Conduct by failing to declare a personal interest and failing to withdraw from the meeting when the matter was discussed. Several days later he repeated this conduct on other further interests although on the last occasion he declared a personal interest but did not withdraw. Whilst Councillor Murphy did not try to seek any personal financial gain from the meeting and did not try and hide his interest they accordingly decided to reprimand the Councillor for his conduct but not take any further action.

    23. Councillor Victor Scrivens, Farnham Town Council

  23. Farnham Town Council’s Amenities Committee considered a repertory companies application for a grant. Councillor Scrivens proposed a Motion to award £10,000 to the company and voted to support it. He declared a personal interest in the matter because the company was an occasional customer at his costume shop but he had declared a prejudicial interest in the same application at an earlier meeting. The Councillor had a long and close relationship with the company and had used costumes from his shop over a number of years and had occupied part of his shop at one point. He was listed as a volunteer on the company’s website and he had decided to close his business and was looking for local groups to purchase his stock and the grant to the company included a sum for the purchase of costumes. It was regarded that his personal interest was so significant that it was likely to prejudice his judgement of the public interest and, therefore, a breach of the Code had occurred. It was noted that the Councillor who had been suspended for four months for similar misconduct and considered that the Panel’s findings and sanctions would ensure Councillor Scrivens future compliance. No further action would be taken.

PETER CLARK
County Solicitor & Monitoring Officer

Background Papers: Nil

Contact Officer: Peter Clark, County Solicitor & Monitoring Officer Tel: (01865) 815363

November 2006

Return to TOP