Issue - meetings

Members are asked to determine whether there has been a breach of the Catfield Code of Conduct and if so, whether any sanction should be imposed.

Investigator’s Introduction

       i.          The Investigator introduced their report and sought to outline key points including the legal position, a summary of evidence, their findings and recommendations. She added that the complaint contained two allegations, one relating to a comment from the Subject Member to a parishioner following a meeting, and the second relating to the Subject Member’s conduct during that meeting. It was noted that the Investigator had not found enough evidence to support the second allegation, and therefore sought to focus on the first allegation, where supporting evidence had been found to determine a breach of the Catfield Code of Conduct.

      ii.          The Investigator stated that the legal backdrop of the complaint included the principle of freedom of expression, which was a fundamental human right to uphold opinions and receive and impart information without interference by public authority, regardless of frontiers. She added that this was enshrined within article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act under English Law. It was noted that this was a qualified right however, which meant that it could be restricted to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The Investigator stated that this was relevant to the standards regime as it was underpinned by the Localism Act, which allowed a Councillor’s freedom of expression to be restricted. She added that politicians were allowed an enhanced freedom of expression to enable to debate and challenge. However, personal abuse or false statements were not afforded enhanced protections, which meant that close and careful consideration should be given to the allegations to determine whether there had been a breach of the code.

     iii.          The Investigator referred to the second complaint and noted that it was an accusation of inappropriate behaviour to a parishioner during a Parish Council meeting. She added that a potential breach had only been found on the first complaint, having reviewed the minutes and recording of the meeting and not found any evidence of actions outlined in the complaint. It was noted that none of the representations received had made reference to verbally abusive language, and consequently a breach had not been found.

    iv.          On the first complaint, the Investigator noted that the Complainant had reported that an offensive statement had been made in reference to a parishioner’s mother following a meeting of the Parish Council. The Subject Member had admitted the statement, but stated that it was made during a private conversation between two adults, and the words used were common parlance used by public figures. It was noted that the Subject Member had also stated that the comments made had nothing to do with the parishioner’s mother being female, and that his comments would have been the same regardless of who it was directed at. It was noted that the Subject Member had also stated that it was late and he was tired after chairing a four hour meeting, and he did not wish to speak to the parishioner.

      v.          The Investigator stated that in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17