Decision Maker: Hearing Review Panel

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: January 17, 2025

Purpose:

Content: 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. The subsequent attendance at Code of Conduct training was after the complaints had been submitted against him.   The Investigating Officer (IO) introduced their report and supporting evidence bundle and highlighted the complaint made against Councillor Cunnington by Councillor Milnes. The complaint was submitted in relation to Councillor Cunnington’s comment underneath a Facebook post by Councillor Green on 1 May 2024. The post contained a link to a Lincsonline news article about former Councillor Patsy Ellis’ resignation from the Council. Councillor Green headed the post: “Former portfolio holder for bins at SKDC, Cllr Patsy Ellis, has left the Cabinet and the Green Party. Did she jump before she was binned?” Councillor Cunnington commented underneath, “Vile disrespectful insensitive scum”.   Councillor Milnes alleged that the comment showed a clear lack of respect, breaching the Code of Conduct and the Nolan Principles (the Seven Principles of Public Life). The IO 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 and the IO confirmed that they were able to investigate any behaviours which they felt were relevant. They 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; in this case Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Taken together, the right to freedom of expression could be subjected to restrictions provided they were lawful and necessary in a democratic society. Freedom of speech could 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.   In the view of the IO the complaint constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct under ‘respect’ which did not attract the protection of Article 10 of the ECHR. This was due to their view that it fell within the realms of what could be considered to represent personal abuse. They did not feel that there was anything within the comment subject to the complaint that brought the Council or the Subject Councillor into disrepute.   As part of the investigation the IO identified a further breach of the Councillor Code of Conduct. This was due to Councillor Cunnington failing to comply with the investigation itself. Various emails were sent to Councillor Cunnington by the IO and the Monitoring Officer during the investigation, but no response had been received. The only response by Councillor Cunnington to the Monitoring Officer was when he was first informed that a complaint had been received.   The IO’s report and evidence bundle included statements submitted by Councillors Penny Milnes and Ben Green.   Councillor Milnes provided a written statement to the Panel which supported the investigation and conclusions carried out by Wilkin Chapman Solicitors. She was satisfied that there had been a ‘detailed, balanced and exhaustive examination of the case’.   The Independent Person praised the comprehensive report and findings of the IO and fully endorsed its conclusions.   The Panel adjourned to deliberate and reach a conclusion at 2:14pm and reconvened at 2:44pm.   Conclusion   The Panel accepted the report in its entirety and agreed that the comment was personal and insulting and concurred with the finding that Councillor Cunnington had failed to co-operate with the investigation.   The also concurred that the comment did not bring the Council or the subject Councillor into disrepute.   The Hearing Review Panel therefore AGREED that the following elements of the Councillor Code of Conduct were breached by Councillor Cunnington:   1.         Respect   As a Councillor:   1.1       I treat other Councillors and members of the public with respect   8.         Complying with the Code of Conduct   As a Councillor:   8.2       I cooperate with any Code of Conduct investigation and/or determination   The Panel, having consulted with the Independent Person, AGREED that the following sanctions be applied:   That Councillor Steven Cunnington be required to attend training on the appropriate use of social media whilst acting in an official capacity as a Councillor.   That Councillor Steven Cunnington be required to attend further training on the Councillor Code of Conduct.   That Councillor Steven Cunnington be required to attend the above training sessions within six months.   That a Censure Notice be placed on Councillor Steven Cunnington’s profile on the Council’s website regarding his failure to co-operate with a Councillor Code of Conduct investigation, for a period of twelve months.    In addition, the Panel made the following recommendation:   a.    That all Councillors be recommended to consider use of the blocking facility on social media platforms.   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 2:50pm.