Agenda and decisions

A formal investigation was undertaken further to allegations made by Councillor Matthew Bailey that Councillor Tim Harrison 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 Harrison had breached the Councillor Code of Conduct.

Prior to the commencement of formal business, the Panel were informed that the Council’s current Independent Person was unable to attend the Hearing due to ill health. However, the Council’s former Independent Person Fred Mann had given his views on the complaint and these views were circulated to Panel members, the subject councillor and the complainant. After deliberating, both the Panel, the complainant and the subject councillor confirmed that they were content to proceed in the absence of the current Independent Person.

Councillor Pam Byrd was elected as Chairman of the Panel.

Councillor Chris Noon wished to highlight that Councillor Tim Harrison was the Leader of the Grantham Independent Group on the Council, of which Councillor Noon was a member. Councillor Noon confirmed that he would make an informed decision based on the evidence before him.

Councillor Richard Dixon-Warren commented that the complainants in this case were Conservative Councillors, and that he was the Conservative Group whip. He emphasised his commitment to make a judgment based on the evidence as presented.

Councillor Pam Byrd stated that the members of the Panel had not met beforehand to discuss content and had not arrived at a pre-determined outcome.

It was confirmed that Councillor Harrison had attended the Code of Conduct training that was mandatory for all councillors. He had also signed the Councillor Code of Conduct upon taking office.

It was confirmed that there had been no requests to hold the hearing in private. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the report contained redactions of personal information of some third parties which did not impact on ability of the Panel to understand the report. The Panel determined to hold the hearing in public.

The Investigating Officer (IO) introduced Wilkin Chapman’s report, and the supporting evidence bundle. The IO summarised the complaint made against Councillor Harrison by Councillor Bailey, who alleged that Councillor Harrison posted a screenshot of a private text message conversation between Councillor Bailey and Councillor Harrison, accompanied by the words ‘oh dear’ in a comment made on a Facebook post.

Councillor Harrison posted a text exchange between himself and Councillor Bailey on 10 March 2024 in the comments section of a post by Councillor Ben Green on Councillor Green’s page. The original post is a video of Councillor Ben Green on the verge of the A1. Councillor Green was highlighting the financial reserve of £60,000 which had been voted through into the budget for 2024/25 at the Council meeting on 29 February 2024. The amendment to the budget had been proposed by a member of the opposition groups and seconded by Councillor Green. 

The complainant alleged breaches of paragraphs 1.1, ‘Respect’ and 4.1, ‘Confidentiality’ of the Council’s Code of Conduct). He also alleged breaches of three of the seven Nolan Principles (the seven Principles of Public Life). The Investigator explained that the Nolan Principles underpinned 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 therefore investigated against the behaviours of disrespect, confidentiality and disrepute, under parts 1, 4 and 5 of the Code of Conduct.

The IO outlined the principles of freedom of expression and the relevant European and UK legislation, alongside Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The right to freedom of expression was enhanced in the area of political commentary, but mere personal abuse did not attract the higher protection. Freedom of speech may be curtailed if it was lawful to do so to protect the rights and freedoms of others; there were several pieces of UK and European caselaw which supported this which were referenced in the IO’s report.

Both Councillor Bailey and Councillor Harrison were interviewed as part of the evidence gathering process. These interviews were part of the evidence bundle; Councillor Bailey had signed his as a correct record, but Councillor Harrison had refused to sign his as he did not agree with the conditions put forward by Wilkin Chapman.

In the view of the IO the sharing of text messages by Councillor Harrison constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct under ‘respect’, ‘confidentiality’, and ‘disrepute’

Respect

The IO felt that the revealing of the text message conversation was clearly meant to belittle Councillor Bailey alongside the posting of a sarcastic emoji. However, Councillor Harrison was making a political comment. If the exchange had originally been made in public, it would have been fully protected under political freedom of expression. However the issue was impacted by the issues of data protection.

The IO felt that the text message exchange was a private conversation.  ...  view the full decision text for item 5.