Agenda and decisions

A formal investigation was undertaken further to allegations made by Councillor Penny Milnes that Councillor Steven Cunnington had breached the Councillor Code of Conduct. The investigation found that breaches of the Councillor Code of Conduct had occurred. The matter was referred to a meeting of the Hearing Review Panel (the Panel). The Panel was requested to consider the investigator’s report in accordance with the Council’s procedures for dealing with complaints against councillors. It was the role of the Panel to make a decision on the investigator’s findings as to whether Councillor Cunnington had breached the Councillor Code of Conduct.

The Panel to elect a Chairman for the Hearing.

Councillor Pam Byrd was elected as Chairman of the Panel.

Although not an interest, the Monitoring Officer reported that Councillor Cunnington had sent an email to him on the morning of 17 January 2025 stating that he had been called away with work and would therefore be unable to attend the hearing. He requested that the hearing be rescheduled. Having considered the request, the Panel unanimously decided to proceed with the hearing as it felt that there was sufficient evidence within the reports pack to make an informed decision. In taking this decision the Panel noted that Councillor Cunnington had failed to engage or co-operate with the investigation, despite a number of attempts by the Investigating Officer and Monitoring Officer.

It was confirmed that there had been no requests to hold the hearing in private. Redactions were made in relation to personal information of other third parties not relevant to the matter under investigation. The Monitoring Officer referred to pages 46-48 of the reports pack where the word ‘confidential’ appeared. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the information was now not confidential, but had been at the time it was received.

The Panel determined to hold the hearing in public.

It was confirmed that Councillor Cunnington had signed the Code of Conduct on becoming a Councillor in 2023, and had also participated in Code of Conduct training, which was mandated for all members of the Council. The subsequent attendance at Code of Conduct training was after the complaints had been submitted against him.

The Investigating Officer (IO) introduced their report and supporting evidence bundle and highlighted the complaint made against Councillor Cunnington by Councillor Milnes. The complaint was submitted in relation to Councillor Cunnington’s comment underneath a Facebook post by Councillor Green on 1 May 2024. The post contained a link to a Lincsonline news article about former Councillor Patsy Ellis’ resignation from the Council. Councillor Green headed the post: “Former portfolio holder for bins at SKDC, Cllr Patsy Ellis, has left the Cabinet and the Green Party. Did she jump before she was binned?” Councillor Cunnington commented underneath, “Vile disrespectful insensitive scum”.

Councillor Milnes alleged that the comment showed a clear lack of respect, breaching the Code of Conduct and the Nolan Principles (the Seven Principles of Public Life). The IO explained that the Nolan Principles underpin the Code of Conduct but did not form part of it. Allegations must relate to behaviours under the Code and the IO confirmed that they were able to investigate any behaviours which they felt were relevant. They investigated against the behaviours of disrespect and disrepute, under parts 1, and 5 of the Code of Conduct.

The IO outlined the principles of freedom of expression and the relevant legislation; in this case Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Taken together, the right to freedom of expression could be subjected to restrictions provided they were lawful and necessary in a democratic society. Freedom of speech could be curtailed if it was lawful to do so to protect the rights and freedoms of others; there were several pieces of UK caselaw which supported this.

In the view of the IO the complaint constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct under ‘respect’ which did not attract the protection of Article 10 of the ECHR. This was due to their view that it fell within the realms of what could be considered to represent personal abuse. They did not feel that there was anything within the comment subject to the complaint that brought the Council or the Subject Councillor into disrepute.

As part of the investigation the IO identified a further breach of the Councillor Code of Conduct. This was due to Councillor Cunnington failing to comply with the investigation itself. Various emails were sent to Councillor Cunnington by the IO and the Monitoring Officer during the investigation, but no response had been received. The only response by Councillor Cunnington to the Monitoring Officer was when he was first informed that a complaint had been received.

The IO’s report and evidence bundle included statements submitted by Councillors Penny Milnes and Ben Green.

Councillor Milnes provided a written statement to the Panel which  ...  view the full decision text for item 5.