Decision

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 Code of Conduct because
Councillor Harrison was making political comment on Councillor
Green’s posts. As political commentary, Councillor
Harrison’s posts attracted a high degree of protection under
the principles and law of freedom of expression.
 
In the view of the IO the
sharing of the post by Lincolnshire Against the Cull referred to in
all three complaints constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct
under ‘respect’, ‘bullying’, and
‘disrepute’. The finding of disrespect was due to their
view that the post was clearly meant to be critical of Councillor
Green and highlight what Councillor Harrison felt was his
hypocrisy. 
 
In respect of bullying, the IO
considered the guidance from the Local Government Association (LGA)
on the Model Code of Conduct and the definition of bullying used by
the Arbitration, Conciliation and Advice Service (ACAS). The IO
found that Councillor Green had been seriously impacted by the
post, felt fearful and had had to postpone or cancel two parish
council meetings. Also considered were the amount of telephone
calls received by Councillor Jeal on this subject, as well as
comments by Councillor Woolley that she was unhappy that Councillor
Harrison had not responded to, or remove, the threatening comment
by member of the public.
 
The IO found that Councillor
Harrison brought the Council and himself as a Councillor into
disrepute. Even if he was originally unaware of the comment, once
he had been contacted by the Police, he would have been expected to
take the issue seriously and remove his original post. However,
even after being asked to remove the post by the Police, he refused
to do so.
 
Freedom of
Expression
 
The IO had considered freedom
of expression and found that, since Councillor Harrison was making
a political point in sharing the Lincolnshire against the Cull post
to his Facebook page, his post attracted the enhanced protection of
political freedom of expression. However, the IO considered that it
was reasonable to restrict that freedom by a finding of breaches of
the Code because of the seriousness of the issue, the impact on
Councillor Green, the fact that a death threat was made in the
comments and that Councillor Harrison refused to remove the post
when asked to do so by the Police.
 
The IO did not find that
Councillor Harrison had harassed Councillor Green as this would
have involved behaviour on more than two occasions.
 
The IO’s report and
evidence bundle included statements submitted by Councillors Graham
Jeal, Sue Woolley and Ben Green. Although Councillor Harrison had
not agreed its content, a transcript of the interview conducted
with Councillor Harrison was included as part of the evidence
bundle.
 
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:
 

explanations of the
difference between bullying and harassment
whether bullying had
to be a pattern of behaviour
whether the removal
of the Lincolnshire Against the Cull post would have been
mitigation
whether, even without
the comments, the shared post itself was a breach

 
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. The IO provided clarity to the points raised, which
covered:
 

Councillors should be
able to operate on social media without having to block each other.
The only post found to be an issue was the shared post from
Lincolnshire Against the Cull.
The fact that
Councillor Green had continued to operate publicly on social media
etc, after the post, did not lessen the impact on him of the
post.
The terminology
within the Lincolnshire Against the Cull post was quite
shocking.

 
Councillor Harrison then used
the opportunity to give his position on the complaints, The
following is a summary of the information expressed by Councillor
Harrison:
 

He shared the post by
Lincolnshire Against the Cull in the interests of openness and to
highlight hypocrisy. The actions of Councillor Green immediately
afterwards were quite suspect.
The
‘culling’ threat posted by
a member of the public on the shared post was removed within hours.
Councillor Harrison was called by the Police who informed him that
the commenter had removed their post and had been issued with a
fixed penalty notice.
He had been too busy
to sign off the transcript put together by Wilkin
Chapman.
These complaints
should have been considered as vexatious.
An email had
previously been sent to Councillor Green by Councillor Harrison
asking to work together without ‘theatre’.
Councillor Green had
blocked Councillor Harrison on Friday 17 January 2025 on
Facebook.
No attempt had been
made to incite anything – the offending comment by the member
of the public had been removed by the Police.
Security was brought
into the Council offices for the perceived death threat against
Councillor Green, but then six days later he was making a video
alongside the A1.
26 complaints had
been received against Councillor Harrison in one weekend; one of
these was about a social media post from the previous year. No
complaints had been received by members of the public or any other
political party other than the Conservatives.

 
The Panel adjourned at 11:38am
and reconvened at 11:53am.
 
Finally, the Panel asked any
clarifications of the subject councillor, who confirmed:
 

The Police called
Councillor Harrison and said ‘I’ve been asked to ask
you to take the post down, would you consider this?’
Councillor Harrison refused to do so as he believed he had done
nothing illegal.
The post shared was
wholly created by Lincolnshire Against the Cull.
Councillor Harrison
had recently decided to stop responding to posts by Councillor
Green.

 
The Panel adjourned to
deliberate and reach a conclusion at 12:02pm and reconvened at
1:32pm.
 
Conclusion
 
The Panel agreed that whilst
the posts in the first part of Councillor Green’s complaint
appeared to be disrespectful, they were within the legal limits of
freedom of expression. The Panel concluded that the complaints on
the shared post from the Lincolnshire Against the Cull Facebook
page were a breach of the Councillor Code of Conduct under
‘respect’ and ‘disrepute’ but found that
there was insufficient evidence that ‘bullying’ had
been demonstrated.
 
The Hearing Review Panel
therefore AGREED that the
following elements of the Councillor Code of Conduct were breached
by Councillor Harrison:
 

1.        
Respect

 
As a
Councillor:
 
1.1       I
treat other Councillors and members of the public with
respect
 
5.        
Disrepute
 
As a
Councillor:
 
5.1       I
do not bring my role … into disrepute
 
The Panel AGREED that the following sanctions be
applied:
 

That Councillor Tim Harrison be
required to attend training on the appropriate use of social media
whilst acting in an official capacity as a Councillor.

That Councillor Tim Harrison be
required to attend further training on the Councillor Code of
Conduct.

That Councillor Tim Harrison be
required to attend the above training sessions within six
months.

That a Censure Notice be placed on
Councillor Tim Harrison’s profile on the Council’s
website regarding bringing his office as a Councillor into
disrepute, for a period of twelve months. 

 
Right of Appeal
 
Subject to judicial review,
there is no right of appeal against the decision of the Hearing
Review Panel.
 
The Hearing closed at
1:38pm.