Decision

The Investigating Officer (IO)
introduced Wilkin Chapman’s report and the supporting
evidence bundle and the one un-redacted complaint made against
Councillor Harrison by Councillor Graham Jeal, which related to the
description of Councillor Graham as a “clown” in a post
on Facebook. Councillor Jeal made two further complaints against
Councillor Harrison but they were not found to be breaches of the
Code of Conduct and were therefore redacted from the final
report.
 
The complainant alleged
breaches of the Nolan Principles (the seven Principles of Public
Life). The Investigator 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. The IO
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; 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.
 
In the view of the IO the use,
or inference of the term ‘clown’ constituted a breach
of the Code of Conduct under ‘respect’. The finding of
disrespect 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 find that
Councillor Harrison had brought himself or the Council into
disrepute and felt that overall people would focus more on the
message of Councillor Harrison rather than the word
itself.
 
The IO’s report and
evidence bundle included a statement submitted by Councillor Graham
Jeal. A transcript of the interview conducted with Councillor
Harrison was included as part of the evidence bundle but he had
refused to sign it as he was too busy to compare the video with the
transcript.
 
The Panel was provided with an
opportunity to ask any points of clarification of the IO in
relation to the report and evidence bundle. The IO provided clarity
to the points raised, which covered:
 

the fact that whilst
Councillor Jeal had not directly been called a clown, the inference
from his the two phrases used were clear. Councillor Jeal had been
referring in his column to concerns of residents about waste and
recycling. Those concerns were no less valid that Councillor
Harrison’s comments about residents struggling to pay for
shopping or living in damp homes. In the view of the IO, in
comparing Councillor Jeal to a clown Councillor Harrison was
diminishing the concerns of some residents.
The more serious the
conduct the more likely it would be found to be in breach of the
Councillor Code of Conduct.

 
Councillor Jeal provided a
written statement to the Panel which supported the investigation
and conclusions carried out by Wilkin Chapman Solicitors. He was
satisfied that a ‘thorough and comprehensive process’
had been undertaken.
 
Councillor Harrison as the
subject councillor had the opportunity to ask any points of
clarification of the IO in relation to the report and evidence
bundle. On behalf of the IO, the Monitoring Officer confirmed that
there had been no other complaints about Councillor
Harrison’s comments on Councillor Jeal’s
post.
 
Councillor Harrison then used
the opportunity to give his position on the complaints, The
following is a summary of his points:
 

The comments about a
clown had been interpreted differently to how Councillor Harrison
had intended them.
Councillor Jeal had
been invited by the Leader of the Council to sit and discuss this
and other issues – there had been no response to this
invite.
He believed that the
comment from Councillor Jeal ‘bins generate as much
unhappiness as I have ever seen’ was incorrect as other
issues needed priority.

 
The Panel adjourned to
deliberate and reach a conclusion at 2:50pm and reconvened at
3:27pm.
 
Conclusion
 
The Panel concluded that the
text and commentary from Councillor Tim Harrison, although
disrespectful did not exceed the threshold of what was protected
under political freedom of expression.
 
The Hearing Review Panel
therefore noted the content of the report but did not find
Councillor Tim Harrison to be in breach of the Councillor Code of
Conduct and AGREED that no
further action be taken.
 
Right of Appeal
 
Subject to judicial review,
there was no right of appeal against the decision of the Hearing
Review Panel.
 
The Hearing closed at
3.29pm.