Agenda and decisions

A formal investigation was undertaken further to allegations made by Councillor Graham Jeal 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. 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 Monitoring Officer confirmed that the Council’s procedure for dealing with complaints against Councillors had been followed fully from the outset in relation to the complaints under consideration at this hearing. The Chairman confirmed that Members of the Panel had not discussed details of the case beforehand and had not pre-empted any decision.

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. He had subsequently attended Code of Conduct training after the complaints had been submitted against him.

The Investigating Officer (IO) introduced Wilkin Chapman’s report, and the supporting evidence bundle and summarised the three complaints made against Councillor Cunnington by Councillor Graham Jeal.

Complaint 1

The liking by Councillor Cunnington of a member of the public’s comment about Councillor Green on Facebook on 2 March in which the member of the public called Councillor Green “a self-promoting pratt”

Complaint 2

Councillor Cunnington’s comments underneath a Facebook post by Councillor Green on 1 May 2024. Councillor Cunnington called Councillor Green a ‘vile disrespectful piece of garbage” and a “vile disrespectful fool”.

Complaint 3

The liking by Councillor Cunnington of a comment by a member of the public under the same post as in Complaint 2. The member of the public called Councillor Green a ‘disgusting little turd’. Councillor Cunnington liked the comment and said “Well said…”

Overall, the complainant alleged breaches of the Nolan Principles (the seven Principles of Public Life), and that Councillor Cunnington had been disrespectful towards Councillor Green, had been dishonest and selective with the truth and had brought the Council into disrepute.

The Investigator explained that the Nolan Principles underpin the Code of Conduct but do 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, bullying and disrepute, under parts 1, 2 and 5 of the Code of Conduct.

The IO outlined the principles of freedom of expression and the relevant legislation; Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The right to freedom of expression was enhanced in political commentary, but mere personal abuse does 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 caselaw which supported this which were referenced in the IO’s report.

In the view of the IO only Complaint 2 constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct under ‘respect’. This was due to their view that it fell within the realms of what could be considered personal abuse, did not attract the higher protection of political commentary and therefore it was reasonable to find a breach. The IO did not uphold allegations that Councillor Cunnington breached part 2, Bullying or  ...  view the full decision text for item 5.