The Hearing Sub-Committee of Warwickshire Council met on Wednesday 24 June 2026 to consider a complaint regarding a breach of the Council's Code of Conduct by Councillor George Finch. The Sub-Committee decided, by a majority of 2:1, that Councillor Finch had not breached the Code of Conduct as the information he posted on X (formerly Twitter) was no longer confidential. The meeting also resolved to exclude the press and public from the proceedings due to the sensitive nature of the information to be discussed.

Code of Conduct Complaint

The Sub-Committee considered a complaint alleging that Councillor George Finch, Leader of the Council, had breached paragraph 3(j) of the Council's Code of Conduct by disclosing confidential information without authority. The complaint stemmed from a post made by Councillor Finch on X on 3 August 2025, which included a copy of a letter he had sent to the Home Secretary concerning a serious crime. Nine separate complaints were received between 4 August and 4 September 2025.

The Investigating Officer, Claire Ward from Anthony Collins LLP, concluded that Councillor Finch had acted in breach of the Code of Conduct. She stated that the post contained sensitive information and individual details, which had been provided to Councillor Finch in his capacity as Leader of the Council. While Councillor Finch argued that the information was already in the public domain, having been reported by Warwickshire World and Mail Online, Ms Ward contended that the media articles were not from an authoritative source and therefore the information was not properly in the public domain. She noted that the information retained its confidential nature because it had been shared with Councillor Finch in confidence, he did not have permission to publish it, and there was no overriding public interest justification for the breadth and timing of the disclosure. However, she confirmed there was no evidence that the release of information had detrimentally impacted criminal proceedings. Ms Ward also referred to Councillor Finch's rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, acknowledging the enhanced protection for political expression.

Councillor Finch maintained that his publication was justified as it contained no information not already in the public domain. He stated that as Leader of the Council, he was facing significant questions and that the Police were not providing the community with necessary information. He believed his actions helped to calm the situation and prevent disruptive protests. He also pointed to a subsequent change in Police guidance that supported the disclosure of such information.

The Independent Person advised the Sub-Committee to consider the weight of the nine complaints and the clear requirements of the Code of Conduct, suggesting that higher standards might be expected of Councillor Finch as Leader of the Council.

By a majority of 2:1, the Sub-Committee concluded that the information published by Councillor Finch was no longer confidential at the time of his post. They found that the information had lost its quality of confidence due to its prior publication in local and national media, which preceded Councillor Finch's social media post. The Sub-Committee noted that the published media articles effectively contained all the sensitive information Councillor Finch had shared. As there was no evidence of how the journalists obtained the information or any inaccuracies in their reports, the Sub-Committee determined they could not state that it had not been properly published.

One member of the Sub-Committee disagreed, believing that as Leader of the Council, Councillor Finch had an obligation to seek full advice from officers before publishing sensitive confidential information, and that the information remained confidential as outlined by the Investigating Officer.

Given this decision, the Sub-Committee did not need to make conclusions on whether the disclosure was justified in the public interest or consider the effect of Councillor Finch's rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. There is no right of appeal against this decision.

Exclusion of Public

The Sub-Committee considered representations from Mr Mitchell, a journalist, and Councillor Finch regarding the exclusion of the press and public. Mr Mitchell argued for transparency, citing the Council's Constitution. Some complainants also preferred the hearing to be public. Councillor Finch stated that while he generally preferred public hearings, certain topics might restrict his ability to speak freely. The Sub-Committee, by a majority of 2:1, resolved to exclude the press and public, finding that the public interest in maintaining the exemption, due to the disclosure of information relating to and identifying individuals under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, outweighed the public interest in the hearing being public.