Issue - meetings

Investigation report attached.

Members considered whether Councillor Batty was acting in his capacity as a councillor at the Estates Committee meeting on 20 February 2024. Members felt that the knowledge of the situation and the context that Councillor Batty demonstrated at that meeting could only have been gained from his position on the parish council and the item that was under discussion was a parish council business. They also took into account case law, namely the case of Paul Richardson and another vs North Yorkshire County Council and the First Secretary of State, which concluded that “a member of an authority attending a council meeting could not divest himself of his official capacity as a councillor in a representative capacity, simply by declaring his attendance in a private capacity. He is still regarded as conducting the business of his office”. It was therefore agreed that, on the balance of probability, Councillor Batty had been acting in his capacity as a parish councillor during the Estates Committee and the code of conduct was therefore engaged.

In considering whether Councillor Batty’s words and behaviour at the meeting breached the parish council’s code of conduct, members felt that he had been disruptive, rude and disrespectful towards officers of a partner organisation when he accused them of telling lies and also towards the chair in using phrases such as “a load of nonsense”, “shut up”, “idiot”. They felt that some of his words were targeted and personal and lost the protection of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression) as a consequence. They felt this behaviour also brought his office into disrepute.

In relation to the allegation that Councillor Batty had an undisclosed pecuniary interest when he spoke at the meeting, whilst members felt his interest wasn’t pecuniary in nature, they felt that on the balance of probabilities he did fail to declare an interest as a resident living next to the park which was central to the debate, and failed to withdraw from the meeting after speaking as required by the code of conduct, and remained in the meeting to influence the outcomes of the debate.

It was therefore moved by Councillor Cook, seconded by Councillor Williams and

RESOLVED – on the balance of probabilities

(i)            Councillor Batty was acting in his capacity as a parish councillor at the meeting of the Estates Committee on 20 February 2024;

(ii)          Councillor Batty breached paragraph 2.3.1 of the Groby Parish Council code of conduct by failing to treat his fellow councillors, in particular the chair, with respect due to the language he used and his disruptive behaviour;

(iii)         Councillor Batty breached paragraph 2.3.2 of the code of conduct by failing to treat officers of a partner organisation with respect in his behaviour and speech;

(iv)         Councillor Batty breached paragraph 2.16 of the code of conduct due to his disorderly and disruptive behaviour falling below the standard expected of a councillor and thereby bringing the role of councillor and the parish council into disrepute;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 238

Complaint about a parish councillor. This item was deferred at a previous meeting.

Consideration was given to two complaints about a parish councillor having allegedly breached the code of conduct by firstly treating a member of the public with disrespect, failing to declare a relevant interest and using inappropriate language in a meeting and secondly bringing the council into disrepute by writing an article that was then published online.

In relation to the first complaint, it was acknowledged that whilst the capacity in which the parish councillor was speaking at the meeting wasn’t clear, as they were speaking on parish council matters it was likely that the code of conduct had been brought into play and therefore the matter should be investigated. On the matter of the second complaint, it was felt that this was likely to bring the parish council into disrepute and again should be referred for investigation. It was moved by Councillor Hodgkins, seconded by Councillor Harris and

RESOLVED – the matter be referred for investigation.