Agenda and decisions

A formal investigation was undertaken further to allegations made by Councillors Ben Green, Graham Jeal and Sue Woolley 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 Independent Person was unable to attend the Hearing due to ill health. After deliberating, both the Panel and the subject councillor confirmed that they were content to proceed in his absence.

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 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 and summarised the three complaints made against Councillor Harrison by Councillors Ben Green, Graham Jeal and Sue Woolley:

Complaint 1 (Councillor Green)

The complaint submitted by Councillor Green was in two parts – part 1 related to the sharing of multiple posts by Councillor Harrison from the Facebook page of Councillor Ben Green, which in Councillor Green’s view amounted to ‘vitrolic attacks’. Part 2 referred to the sharing of a post created by the organisation Lincolnshire Against the Cull, which contained a large image of Councillor Green alongside an image of his ward which had the caption ‘ALL BADGERS ARE TO BE KILLED HERE’ written across it. It contained a threatening comment by a member of the public; ‘what is the chance of culling this waste of space. I’m sure nobody would notice him missing from his ward.’

Complaint 2 (Councillor Jeal)

The complaint also concerned the sharing of a post created by the organisation Lincolnshire Against the Cull, which contained a large image of Councillor Green alongside an image of his ward which had the caption ‘ALL BADGERS ARE TO BE KILLED HERE’ written across it. It contained a threatening comment by a member of the public; ‘what is the chance of culling this waste of space. I’m sure nobody would notice him missing from his ward.’

Complaint 3 (Councillor Woolley)

Similarly, Councillor Woolley’s complaint concerned the Lincolnshire Against the Cull post shared in complaints 1 and 2, and the comment posted in reply.

The complainants alleged breaches of the Nolan Principles (the seven Principles of Public Life). Councillor Green alleged incitement of local animal rights activists through the sharing of the above post. He confirmed that the threatening comment added by a member of the public to this post attracted a fixed penalty notice from the Police.

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 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 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.

The IO found that the first part of Councillor Green’s complaint relating to Councillor Harrison sharing various of his posts to his own Facebook page and commenting on them, was not a breach of the  ...  view the full decision text for item 5.