Today I received a copy of the conduct report and the monitoring officers findings
I think she has this time been fair. Considering I did not take part in this investigation
to save taxpayers money. I am pleased she recognises the whole of Oakham Town
Council is failing and it is true I react rather than attack in most cases. If I had
responded to the investigation I would have evidenced that and provided some shocking
material just as I did at the 5 day trial a few years ago.
The investigator says he can see from recordings of meetings I was undermining
the authority of the chairman of the council die to the timing of this investigation
I assume he is referring to Ex Mayor Alf Dewis who was a bully and resigned
from the council for unlawful conduct.
He like the monitoring officer acknowledges the Town Council is at fault
and needs to make changes, I cant see that happening things are just
getting worse. And they will continue to get worse as I point out what the
council does wrong.
Many of the 16 complaints are the same.
Many refer to Cllr Lucas appalling conduct of bringing an item to council
that should not have been brought to council that being her trying to award
those who worked on her receiving her BEM, It is not within the remit
of the Town Council to appoint an Alderman. The Clerk should have advised
her before the meeting instead of letting her go on and on about the wonderful
job these people had done to get her a BEM. It is my understanding that those
who receive such a honour should not know who nominated them Cllr
Lucas knew and was attempting to show what a sham the honours system
is. You reward me and I will reward you.
On Page 10 of the report point e Cllr Lowe makes an inaccurate statement.
He say Officers at Rutland County Council suggested members of Oakham
Town Council should not disclose information during negotiations.
I was not told this the Clerk Richard White told me outside a meeting that
the solicitor and asked us not to disclose information about a covenant
attached to the Woodland Trust Land. I felt this was wrong made that information
public causing the Woodland Trust to pull out of the deal. As a Councillor
I was not willing to see a beneficiary lose out.
On page11 item g Cllr Lowe suggests mentions my refusal to provide the
council with photographs for a project. What he fails to state is he sent me
a email which states if I do provide photographs other Cllrs would not
submit any. he goes on to say this was consistent with Cllr Brookes 'behviour'
I chose not to involve myself in their foolish games and then find myself
accused of poor behavior. I once gave Oakham Town Council a number
of photographs for the Green Flag Project and when the assistant Clerk
had completed the folder she was told to remove my photographs.
The current project does contain some of my photographs because this
time around the assistant clerk said she would not take any notice of the
cllr who objected to my photographs being used.
Whilst on the subject of photograph I could not help smile when I read
this point of a complaint about my conduct towards Cllr Lucas it is pathetic:
Councillor Brookes usually
attended and took photographs of her, publishing the worst
photograph of her on his blog. She believed he did this to embarrass
her. It was disrespectful;
Page 14 item h Ex Cllr Paul Mills seems to suggest I am responsible
for the council losing 16 Cllr over the last six years quite an achievement
for anyone. It is true most recently the Mayor Cllr Alf Dewis resigned
for his unlawful conduct that is not my fault.
Cllr Michael Haley complains because I published a Streets Accountants
Report on my blog I published this as I felt it was in the public interest
and the public had paid for it. The report to this day is hidden in a file
of 50 plus documents on the council website because they do not want
the public to see it.
on page 15 point j Cllr Haley lies about Cllr Lowe Joking his joke was
offensive i was not eaves dropping and was not far away. Cllr Howards
reaction confirmed it was offensive and it was, Cllr Haley states the
joke was about religion it may not have been offensive to him but if
he was a Muslim he would have been offended.
The whole report makes the council look very stupid.
One complaint refers to Councillor Lucas calling me a little man and
and me calling her a disgrace. Its all pathetic.
Ex Cllr Dewis forgot to mention she even offered to knit me
a willy warmer as it would not take long to knit.
A former Mayor Jim Harrison assumes an alteration to a car number plate
means I am calling him a Knob.
Another former Mayors Mr Beech Complaint digs up comments and allegations
he made back in 2006 - 2007 still bitter the CPS threw out his case
I guess. The investigator finds I intimidated really! a man when he first spoke
to me said he could kill me with his bare hands and writes letters suggesting
when I take photos of the remembrance Sunday event I urinating on the
war memorial.
I lot of emphasis is made about me not respecting Cllrs so I have
started sending in conduct complaints about Oakham Town Councillors
which I can prove. The first is about Stan Stubbs a vile man who
thinks its fine to call me a Bastard at a recorded meeting, respect should
come from both people.
The next is our Mayor Adam Lowe and his emails he sends to new
members telling them to avoid me as we all do because I am nuts,
he falsely stated I prostituted myself as a child to Hertfordshire
Police and made the suggestion I was doing the same with Leicestershire
Police .
I hope the monitoring officer takes both these complaint seriously and then
I follow with the others.
This evening I wrote to the assistant Clerk and stepped down from
the Planning Sub Committee the only committee I was appointed to
because no one else wanted it, The Mayor Adam Lowe sent me an
email earlier this week about this report and finding I am not going
to give him the pleasure of getting members to vote to decide if they
want to kick me off.
As for the planning and parks we are all invited not appointed so I
have asked the monitoring officer if they can remove me from this
committee because most of the meetings actually consider full
council business.
Rutland County Council have publish this confidential report which I understand
has cost over £10,000 I wonder how much more money will be spent by the
people who want to shut me up and prevent me from exposing our dysfunctional
disgraceful Town Council.
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 1 of 43
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
Case references: 17-15, 19-15, 20-15, 21-15, 22-15, 23-15, 24-15, 25-15, 26-15,
29-15, 30-15, 31-15, 33-15, 34-15, 36-15 and 38-15
Report of an investigation by David Hayward of Wilkin Chapman LLP, appointed by
the Monitoring Officer for Rutland County Council, into allegations concerning
Councillor Martin Brookes of Oakham Town Council.
13th May 2016
I think she has this time been fair. Considering I did not take part in this investigation
to save taxpayers money. I am pleased she recognises the whole of Oakham Town
Council is failing and it is true I react rather than attack in most cases. If I had
responded to the investigation I would have evidenced that and provided some shocking
material just as I did at the 5 day trial a few years ago.
The investigator says he can see from recordings of meetings I was undermining
the authority of the chairman of the council die to the timing of this investigation
I assume he is referring to Ex Mayor Alf Dewis who was a bully and resigned
from the council for unlawful conduct.
He like the monitoring officer acknowledges the Town Council is at fault
and needs to make changes, I cant see that happening things are just
getting worse. And they will continue to get worse as I point out what the
council does wrong.
Many of the 16 complaints are the same.
Many refer to Cllr Lucas appalling conduct of bringing an item to council
that should not have been brought to council that being her trying to award
those who worked on her receiving her BEM, It is not within the remit
of the Town Council to appoint an Alderman. The Clerk should have advised
her before the meeting instead of letting her go on and on about the wonderful
job these people had done to get her a BEM. It is my understanding that those
who receive such a honour should not know who nominated them Cllr
Lucas knew and was attempting to show what a sham the honours system
is. You reward me and I will reward you.
On Page 10 of the report point e Cllr Lowe makes an inaccurate statement.
He say Officers at Rutland County Council suggested members of Oakham
Town Council should not disclose information during negotiations.
I was not told this the Clerk Richard White told me outside a meeting that
the solicitor and asked us not to disclose information about a covenant
attached to the Woodland Trust Land. I felt this was wrong made that information
public causing the Woodland Trust to pull out of the deal. As a Councillor
I was not willing to see a beneficiary lose out.
On page11 item g Cllr Lowe suggests mentions my refusal to provide the
council with photographs for a project. What he fails to state is he sent me
a email which states if I do provide photographs other Cllrs would not
submit any. he goes on to say this was consistent with Cllr Brookes 'behviour'
I chose not to involve myself in their foolish games and then find myself
accused of poor behavior. I once gave Oakham Town Council a number
of photographs for the Green Flag Project and when the assistant Clerk
had completed the folder she was told to remove my photographs.
The current project does contain some of my photographs because this
time around the assistant clerk said she would not take any notice of the
cllr who objected to my photographs being used.
Whilst on the subject of photograph I could not help smile when I read
this point of a complaint about my conduct towards Cllr Lucas it is pathetic:
Councillor Brookes usually
attended and took photographs of her, publishing the worst
photograph of her on his blog. She believed he did this to embarrass
her. It was disrespectful;
Page 14 item h Ex Cllr Paul Mills seems to suggest I am responsible
for the council losing 16 Cllr over the last six years quite an achievement
for anyone. It is true most recently the Mayor Cllr Alf Dewis resigned
for his unlawful conduct that is not my fault.
Cllr Michael Haley complains because I published a Streets Accountants
Report on my blog I published this as I felt it was in the public interest
and the public had paid for it. The report to this day is hidden in a file
of 50 plus documents on the council website because they do not want
the public to see it.
on page 15 point j Cllr Haley lies about Cllr Lowe Joking his joke was
offensive i was not eaves dropping and was not far away. Cllr Howards
reaction confirmed it was offensive and it was, Cllr Haley states the
joke was about religion it may not have been offensive to him but if
he was a Muslim he would have been offended.
The whole report makes the council look very stupid.
One complaint refers to Councillor Lucas calling me a little man and
and me calling her a disgrace. Its all pathetic.
Ex Cllr Dewis forgot to mention she even offered to knit me
a willy warmer as it would not take long to knit.
A former Mayor Jim Harrison assumes an alteration to a car number plate
means I am calling him a Knob.
Another former Mayors Mr Beech Complaint digs up comments and allegations
he made back in 2006 - 2007 still bitter the CPS threw out his case
I guess. The investigator finds I intimidated really! a man when he first spoke
to me said he could kill me with his bare hands and writes letters suggesting
when I take photos of the remembrance Sunday event I urinating on the
war memorial.
I lot of emphasis is made about me not respecting Cllrs so I have
started sending in conduct complaints about Oakham Town Councillors
which I can prove. The first is about Stan Stubbs a vile man who
thinks its fine to call me a Bastard at a recorded meeting, respect should
come from both people.
The next is our Mayor Adam Lowe and his emails he sends to new
members telling them to avoid me as we all do because I am nuts,
he falsely stated I prostituted myself as a child to Hertfordshire
Police and made the suggestion I was doing the same with Leicestershire
Police .
I hope the monitoring officer takes both these complaint seriously and then
I follow with the others.
This evening I wrote to the assistant Clerk and stepped down from
the Planning Sub Committee the only committee I was appointed to
because no one else wanted it, The Mayor Adam Lowe sent me an
email earlier this week about this report and finding I am not going
to give him the pleasure of getting members to vote to decide if they
want to kick me off.
As for the planning and parks we are all invited not appointed so I
have asked the monitoring officer if they can remove me from this
committee because most of the meetings actually consider full
council business.
Rutland County Council have publish this confidential report which I understand
has cost over £10,000 I wonder how much more money will be spent by the
people who want to shut me up and prevent me from exposing our dysfunctional
disgraceful Town Council.
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 1 of 43
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
Case references: 17-15, 19-15, 20-15, 21-15, 22-15, 23-15, 24-15, 25-15, 26-15,
29-15, 30-15, 31-15, 33-15, 34-15, 36-15 and 38-15
Report of an investigation by David Hayward of Wilkin Chapman LLP, appointed by
the Monitoring Officer for Rutland County Council, into allegations concerning
Councillor Martin Brookes of Oakham Town Council.
13th May 2016
VOLUME 1
REPORT
PO Box 16,
Town Hall Square,
Grimsby
DN31 1HE
a limited liability partnership registered in England number OC343261
authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 3 of 43
Contents Page
1. Executive Summary 4
2. Councillor Brookes’ official details 5
3. Relevant legislation and protocols 6
4. The evidence gathered 8
5. Summary of the material facts 31
6. Reasoning as to whether there have been failures
to comply with the Code of Conduct 33
7. Finding 43
Appendix A Schedule of evidence taken into account and list of unused material
Appendix B Chronology of events
1. Executive Summary
1.1 Councillor Martin Brookes is a member of Oakham Town Council.
1.2 As a result of my investigation, I have concluded that:-
Councillor Brookes’ actions were within the scope of the Council’s
code of conduct;
that on two occasions Councillor Brookes published confidential
information on a public website and therefore breached the Code of
Conduct;
that in emails and in posts on the internet Councillor Brookes
published comments about Councillor Lowe that were untrue and
disrespectful and therefore breached the Code of Conduct;
that in emails and in posts on the internet Councillor Brookes
published comments about Councillor Dewis that were untrue and
disrespectful and therefore breached the Code of Conduct;
that in posts on the internet Councillor Brookes published comments
about Mr Beech that were derogatory and disrespectful and therefore
breached the Code of Conduct;
that in posts on the internet Councillor Brookes published comments
about Mr Harrison that were intimidatory and therefore breached the
Code of Conduct;
that in posts on the internet Councillor Brookes published comments
about another person that were untrue and disrespectful and therefore
breached of the Code of Conduct.
1.3 Having considered the facts as set out in section 4 of this report and the
considerations set out in section 5 I have concluded that Councillor Brookes’
conduct has fallen short of that expected of members of the Town Council.
1.4 I therefore consider that Councillor Brookes failed to comply with paragraphs
4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.5 of the Council’s code of conduct.
1.5 I therefore consider that Councillor Brookes has failed to comply with the
Council’s code of conduct in respect of those parts of the complaint set out in
this report.
Page 4 of 43
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 5 of 43
2. Councillor Brookes official details
2.1 Councillor Martin Brookes was elected a member of Oakham Town Council in
May 2015. He is the ward member for Oakham South East.
2.2 He is a member of the following committees:-
Planning and Parks Committee;
Planning Sub Committee.
2.3 He has also been appointed by the Council to the following outside
organisations:-
Citizens Advice.
2.4 Councillor Martin Brookes signed a declaration of office on 11 May 2015.
2.5 Councillor Brookes attended training for newly elected members in June
2015.
3. Relevant legislation and protocols
3.1 Section 27 of the Localism Act 2011 (the Act) provides that a relevant
authority (of which the Council is one) must promote and maintain high
standards of conduct by members and co-opted members of the authority. In
discharging this duty, the Council must adopt a code dealing with the conduct
that is expected of members when they are acting in that capacity.
3.2 Section 28 of the Act provides that the Council must secure that its code of
conduct is, when viewed as a whole, consistent with the following principles:-
(a) Selflessness;
(b) Integrity;
(c) Objectivity;
(d) Accountability;
(e) Openness;
(f) Honesty;
(g) Leadership.
3.3 The Council adopted a Code of Conduct (attached at DH 1) on 8 August 2012
and amended on 12 March 2014 in which the following paragraphs are
included:-
3 When Does The Code Apply?
3.1 The Code applies whenever a person is acting in his/her official
capacity as a member of the Council or a co-opted member in the
conduct of the business or acting as a representative of the Council.
The Code does not apply when a person claims to act or gives the
impression of acting as a representative of the Council.
4 Member Obligations
4.1 A member of the Council has the following obligations. He or
she shall-
4.1.1 Behave in such a way that a reasonable person would regard
as respectful.
4.1.2 Not act in a way which a reasonable person would regard as
bullying or intimidatory.
4.1.3 Not seek to improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage
on any person.
4.1.3 Use the resources of the Council in accordance with its
Page 6 of 43
4.1.4 Not disclose information which is confidential or where
disclosure is prohibited.
Page 7 of 43
4. Evidence and facts
My appointment
4.1 The Council’s arrangements for dealing with standards complaints (attached
at DH 2) state that the Monitoring Officer of the Council, in consultation with
the appointed Independent Person, shall decide whether or not to investigate
a complaint.
4.2 Debbie Mogg, the Monitoring Officer of the Council, instructed me on 6
October 2015 to carry out an investigation on her behalf of a number of
complaints, submitted by 8 members of Oakham Town Council and a
member of the public against Councillor Brookes. The complaints were dated
between 27 July 2015 and 2 November 2015. A summary of the complaints
are set out in the decision notices provided by the Monitoring Officer and
attached at DH 3 to DH 16. During my investigation a further complaint was
submitted by a further member of the public (attached at DH 17) dated 11
November 2015. I was also instructed to carry out a detailed examination of a
blog operated by Councillor Brookes on which it was alleged disrespectful
comments had been posted.
4.3 I am a former senior police officer having held the positions of Divisional
Commander, Detective Chief Superintendent (Head of Crime) and Head of
Professional Standards. I am now a Public Law Executive with Wilkin
Chapman LLP. I have investigated a number of alleged breaches of the Local
Government Code of Conduct for various local authorities as well as
investigated numerous employment related issues within the public sector
concerning conduct and capability arising from both internal and external
complaints.
4.4 I was assisted in the conduct of the investigation by Alan Tasker and Mark
Oliver. Mr Tasker is a former Monitoring Officer of a district council and a
Consultant non solicitor with Wilkin Chapman LLP. Mr Oliver is a former
senior police officer with substantial investigative experience. He is also a
Consultant non solicitor with Wilkin Chapman LLP.
The investigation
4.5 During the investigation, Mr Oliver and/or Mr Tasker held face to face
meetings (or in one instance a telephone conversation) with, and obtained
signed statements from, 6 members of Oakham Town Council and three
other persons. These statements were signed on various dates from 11
November to 30 December 2015.
4.6 Copies of the above, together with other relevant documents are annexed to
this report and listed in a schedule of evidence at Appendix A.
4.7 I wish to record my thanks and those of Mr Oliver and Mr Tasker for the cooperation
and courtesy shown to us by all those we had cause to contact
during the investigation.
Background
4.8 Councillor Brookes became a Member of Oakham Town Council in May
2015.
Page 8 of 43
4.9 Councillor Brookes operates a blog at ‘martinbrookes.blogspot.co.uk’. He also
operates a Facebook page. The blog has a section titled ‘Oakham Town
Council’. Under the Oakham Town Council heading there are numerous blogs
which relate to the activity of the Town Council including agenda items for
meetings of the Council, email correspondence between Town Councillors
and sound and/or video recordings of meetings.
4.10 It is alleged that since being elected to the Council Councillor Brookes has
been disruptive at meetings to the point where other Councillors are refusing
to work with him.
4.11 It is evident from items and articles published on Councillor Brookes’ blog that
he disagrees with much of the activity of the Town Council and with the views
of many of the other Town Councillors.
4.12 Included in the content of Councillor Brookes’ blog are copies of documents
which the Council has resolved should be treated as confidential. In one case
Councillor Brookes has acknowledged that he has published a confidential
item on the blog. On 24 July 2015 Councillor Brookes made a self-referral
complaint concerning the publication of exempt material (attached at DH 18).
The complaints
4.13 Between 27 July 2105 and 2 November 2015 a number of complaints were
made to the Rutland County Council’s Monitoring Officer regarding the
alleged misconduct of Councillor Brookes. Complaints were made by nine
serving Town Councillors (including Councillor Brookes) and two other
individuals. In total sixteen complaints were referred for investigation. Some
of these complaints referred to more than one incident. These complaints
related to either the disclosure of confidential information or what was
considered by the complainants as inappropriate material posted on the
internet by Councillor Brookes.
4.14 The complaints can be categorised into three specific areas:-
(a) the publication of confidential information,
(b) showing disrespect towards others in particular in emails and in posts
on a website,
(c) bullying and intimidatory behaviour.
4.15 The complaints were:-
27 July 2015 - at a meeting of the Town Council held on 22 July the
Council considered an item about Aldermen. The Council resolved to
exclude the press and public during the consideration of the item due
to the confidential nature of the business. Soon after the meeting
Councillor Brookes displayed the exempt agenda item on a blog he
operates. In July 2015 Councillor Brookes met with another Town
Councillor regarding a lease and licence associated with land on
Brook Hill, Oakham, After the meeting Councillor Brookes posted
details of the lease and confidential items on his blog;
16 August 2015 - on 12 August 2015 Councillor Brookes posted
information on his blog which contained suggested stories and lies
about what appears to be Councillor Lowe. Councillor Brookes also
sent an email to that councillor’s employer;
Page 9 of 43
25 August 2015 - Councillor Brookes slandered Councillor Lowe in his
blog on 10 May 2015 by reporting that Councillor Lowe had broken the
law by canvassing for a political party whilst serving as a Special
Constable;
4.16 Councillor Lowe was interviewed by Mr Tasker and a signed statement was
obtained (attached at DH 22)
4.17 Councillor Lowe stated that:-
(a) he was a Member of Oakham Town Council, having been first coopted
to the Council in December 2010. He had served as the
Chairman and Town Mayor and was currently the Chairman of the
Planning and Parks Committee and the Deputy Chairman of the
Council. He was a member of the Staffing Committee and had served
on a number of working groups. He received training as a councillor
with the Association of Local Councils, attended Parish Forums and
was an active member of the Town Council. He was employed as a
branch manager for a builders’ merchant having been with the same
employer for the last 17 years. He had previously served with the
Territorial Army for 10 years and as a Special Constable for 17 years,
was involved in a number of organisations in the town including
voluntary work with a group providing assistance for the elderly, a
trustee of Rutland Grants and an active member of the Church;
(b) regarding the confidential information, Councillor Lucas presented a
report to the Town Council about a suggestion to put forward two
individuals as Aldermen. The report named the two individuals who
were not aware of the proposal to put their names forward. The report
was circulated on red paper which was the Town Council’s practice
when the information contained in the report was considered to be
confidential. A vote was taken to confirm that the report should be
considered in the exempt part of the meeting. The Town Council
agreed no further action on the matters contained in the report and
the red papers were collected at the conclusion of the meeting;
(c) the following day information about the confidential report was
published by Councillor Brookes on his blog;
(d) at the next meeting of the Town Council there were some very upset
people as the disclosure of the information had caused significant
embarrassment. When the matter was raised Councillor Brookes’
response was “you can’t do anything”. His response was to refuse to
serve on the same committees and working groups as Councillor
Brookes as he had breached the trust of the Council and breached
the code of conduct;
(e) further disclosure of confidential information occurred when the Town
Council was considering a lease and licence associated with land on
Brooke Hill. Officers at Rutland County Council suggested that
Members of the Town Council should not disclose the information
during the negotiations. Councillor Brookes posted details on his blog
disclosing the confidential information;
(f) the second issue related to an email Councillor Brookes received
from a former employee of the company Councillor Lowe was
employed by. The former employee left the company of his own
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 11 of 43
accord whilst he was the branch manager. Councillor Brookes did not
know the writer of the email and did not attempt to verify the
allegations in the email which were untrue; instead he published the
email on his blog and sent a copy to Councillor Lowe’s employer and
a large number of other people. The allegations were so serious they
were investigated by his employer who found there was no substance
to the allegations and concluded no action should be taken;
(g) despite these incidents he tried to resolve the difficulties by working
with Councillor Brookes, often when other Members of the Council
were trying to ignore Councillor Brookes. He was a member of a
working group dealing with publicity and the Council needed some
new photographs. Councillor Brookes was an accomplished
photographer so he suggested inviting Councillor Brookes to submit
some pictures. Councillor Brookes refused to submit any pictures.
This was consistent with Councillor Brookes’ behaviour which was to
constantly be negative towards the Council. Councillor Brookes was
disruptive at Council meetings and undermined the work of the
Council at every opportunity;
(h) most recently Councillor Brookes had posted information on his blog
stating that he had been sacked by his employer. This was yet
another example of Councillor Brookes’ practice of making things up
in an attempt to discredit him. He considered this to be disrespectful
and therefore a breach of the Council’s code of conduct.
Complainant - Councillor Stubbs
4.18 Councillor Stubbs submitted a complaint on 13 August 2015 in which he
stated that on 22 July 2015 at a meeting of the Town Council the Council
considered an item about Aldermen, the Council resolved to exclude the
press and public due to the confidential nature of the business. Soon after the
meeting Councillor Brookes displayed the exempt agenda item on a blog he
operated. In July 2015 Councillor Brookes met with another Town Councillor
regarding a lease and licence associated with land on Brook Hill, Oakham,
after the meeting Councillor Brookes posted details of the lease and
confidential items on his blog. Councillor Stubbs further alleged that
Councillor Brookes sent a vindictive email to Councillor Lowe.
4.19 Councillor Stubbs was interviewed by Mr Tasker and a signed statement was
obtained (attached at DH 23):-
4.20 Councillor Stubbs stated that:-
(a) he was a Member of Oakham Town Council having been first elected
in 2013. He moved to Oakham about 3 years ago from Wiltshire
where he was a member of a Parish Council for eight years. During
that time he held a number of positions including Chairman of the
Parish Council, Chairman of a Pilot Area Committee, one of 14 in
Wiltshire, comprising of representatives from the County Council,
Police and Fire Service and Member of a Joint Committee dealing
with Grants. Since being a Member of Oakham Town Council he had
been a Member of the Planning and Parks Committee including
holding the position of Chairman for one year;
(b) the first item of concern related to a report prepared by Councillor
Lucas for a meeting of the Town Council held on 22 July 2015. The
report identified two individuals who she proposed should be
considered being made Honorary Aldermen. The item was listed on
the agenda for the meeting as being confidential. The decision to
designate items as confidential at this stage was made by the Town
Clerk in consultation with the Chairman of the Town Council (The
Mayor). The information in the report was considered confidential as
the two individuals were not aware of the proposal and it is normal
practice not to disclose such information prior to a decision being
taken to avoid any unnecessary embarrassment;
(c) the report was circulated on bright red paper which indicated that it
was confidential. At the meeting the Council took a vote to confirm
that the item should be considered as exempt. It is the Council’s
practice that confidential reports are collected at the conclusion of the
meeting by the Town Clerk. The convention was that the Chairman of
the meeting asked Members to leave the red papers for collection
and destruction to avoid the confidential information becoming public;
(d) as far as he was aware Councillor Brookes did not hand in or leave
his copy of the report as the following morning full details of the
report, including the identity of the two individuals, were published on
Councillor Brookes’ blog. This disclosure of confidential information
caused concern and embarrassment to the Town Council and in
particular Councillor Lucas who quickly contacted the two individuals
as they were not aware of the information in the report. He
considered that by disclosing the details contained in this confidential
report Councillor Brookes has breached the code of conduct;
(e) the second matter concerned Councillor Brookes’ conduct towards
other councillors, in particular Councillor Lowe and Councillor Lucas.
Councillor Brookes had shown a lack of integrity in the comments he
had posted on his blog, the material published was clearly aimed at
harassing and intimidating other councillors;
(f) Councillor Brookes made vindictive comments relating to Councillor
Lowe’s service as a Special Constable in one email sent to him;
(g) since submitting his complaint further emails and blog postings had
been made by Councillor Brookes, most recently an email sent at
12.33 on 1 November 2015, a copy of which he provided to the
investigator. In this email, which was copied to other individuals,
Councillor Brookes made statements that were completely untrue
and without foundation;
(h) he also witnessed Councillor Brookes being abusive towards other
Councillors. He believed that Councillor Brookes goaded people to
get a reaction. Some Councillors had dealt with this by ignoring
Councillor Brookes and refusing to work with him on Committees and
Working Groups. Councillor Lowe had a Christian philosophy and
had tried to forgive him;
(i) it appeared that Councillor Brookes was intent on bringing the Town
Council down by continually bringing the Council in to disrepute.
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 13 of 43
Complainant - Councillor Mills
4.21 Councillor Mills submitted a complaint on 13 August 2015 in which he alleged
that Councillor Brookes constantly berates and makes disparaging comments
about other Councillors. This cumulated in an email sent by Councillor
Brookes to Councillor Lowe which was at least dishonest and deceitful if not
libellous.
4.22 Councillor Mills was interviewed by Mr Tasker and a signed statement was
obtained (attached at DH 24):-
4.23 Councillor Mills stated that:-
(a) he was a Member of Oakham Town Council, having been first
elected to the Council in May 2015. He was retired having been
employed as a Senior Business Banker, he was involved in a number
of organisations including being a Governor of Oakham Primary
School, a Member of Lions, a Prison Monitor at HMP Stockwell and a
Custody Suite Visitor. He had extensive experience of financial
matters and dealing with complaints;
(b) he had lived in Oakham for 25 years during which he had developed
a wide knowledge of the town and the people who live there. He
decided to stand for the Council in May 2015 as he considered he
could help to raise the profile of the town by organising and
promoting events. Prior to joining the Council he knew of Martin
Brookes but until serving on the Council with him he did not realise
how destructive he was. Until very recently, when he responded to
one of Councillor Brookes’ emails with a number of questions, he had
not been the subject of any attacks. He had provided the
Investigating Officer with copies of recent emails and entries from
Councillor Brookes’ blog (attached at DH 25). These include false
and malicious comments about Councillor Lowe, in particular an
untrue statement that Councillor Lowe had been sacked by his
employer;
(c) Councillor Brookes disrupted meetings of the Council. The Council’s
practice was for Members to indicate that they wish to speak and,
when called by the Chairman, to stand whilst speaking. Councillor
Brookes constantly stood, interrupted and berated those speaking to
the point where the meeting was out of control. His conduct was
damaging both to the effective conduct of the meetings and to the
reputation of the Town Council;
(d) Councillor Brookes appeared to have his own agenda which seemed
to be to bring the Council down. On the one hand Councillor Brookes
says he was trying to improve the Council but then constantly
objected to anything being put forward and never offered any positive
comments;
(e) in his capacity as the Chairman of the Town Council’s Finance
Committee he invited Councillor Brookes to attend a meeting to put
forward views and suggestions on the Council’s finances. Councillor
Brookes did not take up the invitation, seemingly to prefer to offer no
positive input but to constantly object and attack those trying to
improve things;
Page 13 of 43
(f) it had got to the stage where Councillors were struggling to cope,
most find it difficult to deal with and work with Councillor Brookes.
This was also becoming evident within other organisations in the
Town. The Council was invited to appoint representatives to sit on
other bodies in the Town. Councillor Brookes was nominated by the
Town Council to the Trustees of Victoria Hall. The Trustees informed
the Council that they did not want Councillor Brookes as a
representative;
(g) despite concerns being raised Councillor Brookes continued to post
inappropriate, untrue and disrespectful comments on his blog. In the
last few days there have been allegations about one of the
candidates standing for the Town Council at a by-election to be held
on 19 November 2015. A copy of the blog entry has been provided to
the Investigating Officer (attached at DH 26);
(h) over the last six years the Town Council had lost 16 Councillors, if the
situation does not change he would have to consider whether there is
any future for him staying on the Council. The question was; how
long would it be before the Council collapsed into disrepute due to
the actions of Councillor Brookes?
Complainant Councillor Haley
4.24 Councillor Haley submitted a complaint on 16 August 2015 in which he stated
that on 22 July 2015 at a meeting of the Town Council the Council considered
an item about Aldermen. The Council had resolved to exclude the press and
public due to the confidential nature of the business. Soon after the meeting
Councillor Brookes displayed the exempt agenda item on a blog he operated.
In July 2015 Councillor Brookes met with another Town Councillor regarding
a lease and licence associated with land on Brook Hill, Oakham. After the
meeting Councillor Brookes posted details of the lease and confidential items
on his blog.
4.25 Councillor Haley provided related documents and blog entries which are
attached at DH 27 – 32.
4.26 Councillor Haley was interviewed by Mr Oliver and a signed statement was
obtained (attached at DH 33):
4.27 Councillor Haley stated that:-
(a) he was a Member of Oakham Town Council having been co-opted on
to the Council in July 2015;
(b) a confidential item about Aldermen was on the agenda for the Town
Council meeting held on 22 July 2015. The public and press were
excluded from the meeting for the item. All councillors, including
Councillor Brookes were aware that the item was confidential. The
papers were clearly marked confidential. Councillor Brookes ignored
the Code of Conduct regarding disclosure of information by
publishing the report in its entirety on his website;
(c) the Town Clerk distributed the papers in advance of the meeting. The
Alderman paper was marked as confidential and was printed on red
paper further denoting it was confidential. He thought it was a single
page report. It was the Clerk’s prerogative to mark an item as
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 15 of 43
confidential. If he had an item that he believed should be confidential
he would discuss this with the Clerk. Once an item was marked as
confidential members should maintain that until the meeting;
(d) members were reminded at the meeting of the confidentiality of the
item. There was no doubt to anyone present that it was confidential.
Councillor Lucas wanted the Council to endorse nominations of
residents to be Aldermen to go to the County Council. She felt it was
imprudent for the residents named in the report to be told. It became
apparent during the discussion that the Town Council was not in a
position to endorse the recommendations. He could not recall
Councillor Brookes commenting on the item during the meeting;
(e) as was normal practice with confidential items, at the end of the
meeting he handed his papers in. Within 24 hours it was brought to
his attention that the confidential item had been scanned in and was
posted on Councillor Brookes’ website. There were comments
regarding the item included in the blog;
(f) in his opinion a second instance of Councillor Brookes breaching the
Code of Conduct occurred when Councillor Brookes published a
report by Streets Accountants. In his opinion this breached the
obligation to not disclose information where disclosure was
prohibited;
(g) on 14 August 2105 Richard White sent an email to him and other
Councillors, attached to the email was an Assurance Review and
certificate from Streets Accountants. The email stated that the
Council had only been given permission by Streets to publish the
report on the Council’s website and forbade it being published on all
other platforms including social media. The email stated that if
anyone wanted to highlight the report on social media they should
provide a link to the Council website. Councillor Brookes was not
copied into the email he received as some Councillors did not wish
Councillor Brookes to have their email address. As a result of this
items are sent separately to Councillor Brookes by the Town Clerk;
(h) the report was to be discussed at the Town Council meeting on 19
August 2015. Councillor Brookes ignored the instruction not to
publicise the report on any platform and posted the report on his
website with additional comments;
(i) the only time he had tackled Councillor Brookes was at the end of a
meeting on 28 October 2015. Councillor Brookes had blogged on
three occasions that he had been making homophobic jokes which
was untrue. Councillor Brookes denied printing the comments and
said he must have been mistaken about him making such comments.
He told Councillor Brookes to be careful about printing such
comments as they may amount to libel;
(j) before a meeting he was near Councillor Lowe who made a joke, an
aside to Councillor Vince Howard about religion. It was an inoffensive
aside and not homophobic or insulting in any way. Councillor Brookes
had been eavesdropping the conversation but was not near enough
to hear what was being said. He believed this was the incident that
led to Councillor Brookes accusing him of being homophobic.
Councillor Brookes sent a sort of apology by email to him and other
Councillors saying that he was in fact an innocent party and that it
was Councillor Lowe who was vile;
(k) a lot of the work by the Council was in working groups which were
productive but relatively informal. Councillor Brookes was not on his
working group because no-one wanted him on it as any ideas or
suggestions raised in the groups would be blogged inhibiting the
working environment. He would not work with Councillor Brookes as
he did not trust what he would say or write;
(l) when he saw Councillor Brookes in Oakham he would cross the
street and walk the other way to avoid talking to him. He did not want
to be rude but wanted to avoid being in a situation that was
misrepresented and reported;
(m) during meetings Councillor Brookes ranted and this had to be
controlled by the Chair resulting in time wasting and other councillors
being upset by the behaviour. There were lots of improvements to be
made at the Council. Rather than identifying a problem to improve
matters Councillor Brookes would run down the Council, the effect
being that Town Councillors questioned why they gave their time
when so much was wasted;
(n) his concern was the impact Councillor Brookes’ behaviour was
having on the Council. His considered opinion was that it prevented a
lot of work being carried out. This was due to the time Councillor
Brookes could waste in meetings and the fear that councillors had of
Councillor Brookes and his blog. It was his opinion that Councillor
Brookes felt he could flaunt Standing Orders as he saw fit and this
was to the detriment of the Town Council and risked bringing the
Council into disrepute.
Complainant Councillor Lucas
4.28 Councillor Lucas submitted three complaints these were:-
17 August 2015 - at a meeting of the Town Council held on 22 July the
Council considered an item about Aldermen. The Council resolved to
exclude the press and public during the consideration of the item due
to the confidential nature of the business. Soon after the meeting
Councillor Brookes displayed the exempt agenda item on a blog he
operated. In July 2015 Councillor Brookes met with another Town
Councillor regarding a lease and licence associated with land on
Brook Hill, Oakham. After the meeting Councillor Brookes posted
details of the lease and confidential items on his blog;
On 2 August 2015 Councillor Brookes approached her whilst she was
hosting a Brass Band event. He tried to engage her and her husband
in conversation but she repeatedly told him to leave them alone.
Councillor Brookes secretly recorded the conversation without consent
and posted it on his blog. Attached at DH 34 is the transcript of the
recording.
On 12 August 2015 Councillor Brookes blogged an unpleasant email
from Mr Andy Hill about Councillor Lowe;
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 17 of 43
24 August 2015 - Councillor Brookes stated in an email that Councillor
Lucas had referred to another councillor as a ‘one trip pony’;
Councillor Brookes disclosed confidential information on his blog
about discussions at a confidential meeting of the Council;
24 August 2015 - Councillor Brookes continued to harass Councillor
Lucas both in emails and on his blog. Attached at DH 35 is an email
from Councillor Brookes to Councillor Lucas dated 28 August 2015;
Councillor Brookes blogged a report from Streets Accountants despite
their request not to do so.
4.29 Councillor Lucas was interviewed by Mr Oliver and a signed statement was
obtained (attached at DH 36):-
4.30 Councillor Lucas stated that:-
(a) she had been a Member of Oakham Town Council for 18 years and
had served as Mayor of Oakham twice. She represented the Council
on a number of other organisations;
(b) the first incident related to a confidential Agenda item for the Town
Council meeting of July 22nd 2015 regarding her proposals and
nominations for more Aldermen for Rutland;
(c) two candidates named in the report were not aware that this was
going to happen. The report was printed on red paper and had
Confidential in capitals written across the entire sheet, indicating that it
was confidential. The meeting voted to exclude the press and public,
the Press and Public were excluded. Before she started to explain the
idea of submitting a report to Rutland County Council she reiterated
her request for confidentiality. All members, except Councillor Brookes
handed their papers back to the Clerk for disposal at the end of the
meeting. This is the normal procedure for dealing with confidential
items at meetings;
(d) Councillor Brookes kept his copy and the next day she saw that he
had blogged the full report with his comments. This was a serious
breach of the disclosure obligation in the Code of Conduct. As a result
of Councillor Brookes publishing this she had to explain the situation
to the candidates, who had been named by virtue of the disclosure by
Councillor Brookes. She was embarrassed and it was only as a result
of Councillor Brookes having improperly disclosed the report that she
had to speak to the two people named in the report and shown on the
blog;
(e) on 2nd August 2015 she was hosting the Forester Brass Band in Cutts
Close Park. Councillors perform this duty in turn and welcome the
band. At the close of the concert the councillor thanks everyone for
attending. There are three of us who carried out these duties in turn.
When she carried out this function Councillor Brookes usually
attended and took photographs of her, publishing the worst
photograph of her on his blog. She believed he did this to embarrass
her. It was disrespectful;
(f) she was sitting with her husband under a gazebo listening to the band
and Councillor Brookes came over and tried to engage her in
conversation. She repeatedly asked him to leave them alone, but he
would not. People who were listening to the band were being
disturbed. She did not want to speak to Councillor Brookes. She tried
not to listen to what he was asking her about. It was about Council
work, something he would disagree with that she had done. His
approach and manner was full on harassment, not respectful, bullying
and intimidation. He was goading her, saying something repeatedly
like “you’re being rude to me again Councillor Lucas”. She was
distressed by his approach and replied something like, “Go away little
man, I’m enjoying the concert. You’re a disgrace to the council”;
(g) she got up and walked away to avoid Councillor Brookes continuing to
harass her and left the immediate area. Councillor Brookes then
returned and spoke to her husband and told him that he had secretly
recorded the conversation, without her consent, and would be adding
the recording to his blog. The very next day a partial recording of the
conversation was added to his blog. The secret recording of her and
her husband in public and publishing it on his blog, together with
disrespectful comments, was an invasion on her privacy and was in
her view disrespectful, bullying, intimidation and not following the
principles of Standards in Public Life, that councillors should comply
with. Her complaint is not the subject of what Councillor Brookes said,
it was the way that he said it, calling her a disgrace, doing his utmost
to embarrass and upset her whenever he can, undermining her as a
councillor;
(h) on 12 August 2015 Councillor Brookes blogged a very unpleasant
email from a Mr Andy Hill which gave an account about Councillor
Lowe. The blog and email contained serious accusations about
Councillor Lowe’s employment with a local firm of building suppliers.
Councillor Brookes admitted in the blog that he was writing as a
councillor. The comments were unsubstantiated and she found this
the most serious offence to date;
(i) she saw the email on Councillor Brookes’ blog. He had been sending
emails about this to the MP Sir Alan Duncan and the press. Councillor
Brookes has alleged that Councillor Lowe had been racist and
homophobic. She had never heard Councillor Lowe behave in this
manner: he was a born again Christian. The allegations contained in
the email, if true, would seriously affect Councillor Lowe in the
workplace and his career or promotions. This was an attack by
someone representing himself as a councillor on the blog, relaying
unfounded allegations albeit the email was from a Mr Andy Hill;
(j) Councillor Lowe had resigned as Chair of the Council, but had come
off various working groups so he was not so prominent, due to the
continued attacks on him in the blog by Councillor Brookes. The
attacks were affecting him seriously as a councillor. She regarded the
blogging and circulation of this unsubstantiated email as intimidation;
(k) Councillor Brookes disregarded the special request from Streets
Accountants not to blog their report in August 2014. Councillors
received an email from the Town Clerk with instructions that publishing
of the full report was prohibited: a condition that Streets accountants
had made. The report was about an accounting error that had been
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 19 of 43
made in the Oakham Town Council accounting returns. The very next
day after receiving the report by email, with instructions that the report
could only be published on the Oakham Town Council website,
Councillor Brookes blogged the full report. She saw it on his blog. She
believed that this breached the members obligation to not disclose
information where disclosure was prohibited. The report was on a
sensitive matter and she thought that the request was to ensure that
any reader obtained the proper version as recorded in the report, and
not accompanied by misleading commentary. When Councillor
Brookes did publish the report he included wholly improper allegations
in his blog, which were disrespectful towards councillors;
(l) Councillor Brookes continually harassed her and made distasteful
comments personally to her, in emails and his blog site. She was
mentioned on most entries. His attitude was unbecoming as a
councillor and showed disrespect to her and his fellow councillors;
(m) Councillor Brookes has called her an undesirable councillor,
repeatedly saying that she should resign immediately. Councillor
Brookes had called her homophobic in his blog or emails in the past;
That was untrue. Other people had read the information and one
person had not spoken to her since, believing the comments to be
true. In an email to her and other councillors of 18th August 2015
Councillor Brookes stated that “Councillor Lucas at the last meeting
sat with her back to me and discussed what she wanted with
Councillor Lowe”. It was untrue to make an allegation that she was
ignoring him at a Council meeting. She had to lip read, and Councillor
Brookes knew that. She had to turn to speak to Councillor Lowe and in
doing so she turned her back on Councillor Brookes. She would not
be disrespectful towards him at Council meetings;
(n) the last time she held a surgery at Victoria Hall Councillor Brookes
attended, uninvited and sat in with her, inhibiting her conversations
with people who came to see her. Councillor Brookes once accused
her husband of drink driving, saying on his blog that he had written
asking to get her BEM revoked. On one occasion attempting to be
friendly she tried to give Councillor Brookes a kiss. He accused her of
common assault. Councillor Brookes made an allegation of Common
Assault against her in August this year. He reached over to get the tea
roster which showed the details of the volunteers. If the volunteers had
found out that Councillor Brookes had got their details they would not
have come anymore. She did not allow him to take the list;
(o) she believed that Councillor Brookes broke the code of conduct by
repeating on his blog statements from a confidential meeting about
interviews for vacancies on Council, to decide who to be co-opted on.
There were four people interviewed. All of the Oakham Town
Councillors including Councillor Brookes took part in the interview.
During the private discussions she called a candidate a “one item
agenda”. Councillor Brookes reported this comment incorrectly as a
“One trip pony” in a complaint email to the Monitoring Officer and
others. Councillor Brookes put this incorrect comment and others
made by councillors about prospective Councillors on his blog. These
discussions were confidential and should have remained so;
(p) On 28 August 2015 Councillor Brookes sent her an email signed in his
capacity as Councillor Martin Brookes. He asked, “Are you aware that
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 20 of 43
so many people describe you as an evil vindictive witch? Why do so
many people describe you like that”. He was disrespectful to her,
using the cover that other nameless people have made such
comments about her. She had not been rude to a county councillor as
Councillor Brookes alleged. The county councillor sat with a banner
outside Oakham Town Council and she had said to him that he would
do better expending his effort with problems regarding the one way
system in the town. Although this was reported as an additional
complaint she considered this email as part of the overall behaviour of
harassment disrespect towards her by Councillor Brookes.
Complainant Councillor Dewis
4.31 Councillor Dewis submitted a complaint dated 17 August 2105 in which he
alleged that Councillor Brookes had sent a vindictive email to Councillor
Lowe.
4.32 During the investigation Councillor Dewis submitted a further complaint dated
2 November 2105 in which he stated that Councillor Brookes circulated an
email claiming that Councillor Lowe had lost his job due to Councillor
Brookes’ previous emails to Councillor Lowe’s employers.
4.33 Copies of various blog entries referred to in Councillor Lowe’s complaint are
attached at DH 18, DH 37, DH 38, DH 39, DH 40, DH 41, DH 42 and DH 43.
4.34 Councillor Dewis was interviewed by Mr Oliver and a signed statement was
obtained (attached at DH 44):-
4.35 Councillor Dewis stated that:-
(a) he was elected as an Oakham Town Councillor in 2009 and had
served three terms as Councillor. In May 2015 he was elected to serve
a second term as Chairman of the Council;
(b) he received a written complaint from a member of the public that
Councillor Brookes had challenged a member of that person’s family
and another person in Cutts Close Park. He resolved the complaint
fairly quickly. He said that Councillor Brookes had no authority to do
these things, unless there was an incident such as someone was
damaging property. This placated the complainant;
(c) he spoke to Councillor Brookes about the incident. Councillor Brookes
stated that he wasn’t involved in the incident at all. He told Councillor
Brookes that he didn’t want him blogging about the complaint. He later
understood that Councillor Brookes went to the home address of the
complainant and made a scene. He could not remember having
received an additional complaint about this second matter. The initial
confrontation was something that the Councillor should not have done
in his capacity as a Councillor, and if he did make a scene, banging on
the door of the complainant then he should not act in an intimidatory
manner to a member of the public. He did not look at Councillor
Brookes’ blog, and so he did not know if he blogged about the
complaint or the later incident;
(d) he had been the local Councillor for Brooke Hill for a number of years.
There was a lack of parking at the primary school for parents to drop
off their children. Parents had to let the children out on the road as the
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 21 of 43
verges were overgrown. As the ward councillor he joined a small body
under the auspices of the school to seek a resolution to the parking
problem. They had discussions with the Woodland Trust who had
authority over the land and there was a proposal that the Trust would
lease an area for 40 cars to be used as parking. The problem was that
there was a lien or covenant on the land which contradicted the use of
the land as proposed;
(e) he brought the matter to the Town Council with a proposal that the
Town Council could hold a lease on the land, as only statutory bodies
could hold the lease. It came to the Council as a confidential matter,
as the Woodland Trust were proposing to obtain an insurance against
breach of covenant, which if became known to the landowner could
have damaged the proposals. The Council took legal advice on the
matter, which was that the matter should remain confidential so the
Council was not drawn into legal wrangles.
(f) a paper was circulated prior to the Council meeting on 22 July 2105 on
red paper as a confidential item. The agenda listed the item as
confidential, with an agenda item immediately before the item for the
council to vote in the meeting whether to exclude the press or public.
These are known as Exempt Items. The Chair and or the Clerk decide
whether matters should be classified as confidential prior to the
meeting. He understood that Councillor Brookes blogged the
confidential item prior to the meeting. Both the school and the
Woodland Trust backed out of the proposal, possibly because of the
disclosure although he did not know the current position;
(g) the practice was that Councillors returned confidential papers at the
close of meetings but he had never seen Councillor Brookes return
confidential papers. The consequence to the Council is that as a result
of one of the councillors blogging confidential items the Council could
not maintain the confidentiality of any of its business. This affected its
ability to carry out its business. There was a lack of trust in the
Council;
(h) he was unaware that in early August 2015 Councillor Brookes covertly
recorded a conversation with him prior to a Council meeting and then
blogged it, making adverse comments about him. He was the Chair of
a staffing meeting which took place in the Council Chamber, Victoria
Hall on 10 August 2015, but was unable to say if he was recorded at
that meeting and he could not remember speaking to Councillor
Brookes on that date. He did not look at the blog, and so did not know
about the comments that might have been made about him, but
Councillor Brookes had an obligation under the Code of Conduct to
behave in a way that is respectful. Everyone was aware that
Councillor Brookes recorded conversations and blogs them. If
Councillor Brookes wanted to speak to him at a meeting where he was
not a member of the committee, then he could speak as a member of
the public at the meeting, but not before;
(i) on 12 August 2015 Councillor Brookes sent an email to a wide
distribution including the MP, Sir Alan Duncan, attacking Councillor
Lowe. A copy of the email is provided. He read the email with
incredulity: it was a vindictive attack, the worst part was that Councillor
Brookes had written to Councillor Lowe’s employer;
(j) in the email Councillor Brookes referred to an email received from a
member of the public. Councillor Lowe later told him that person had
worked for Councillor Lowe at a company in the area and that he had
resigned or been dismissed. Although Councillor Brookes admitted
that he did not know the person, he used the information contained in
the email to attack Councillor Lowe and even sent a copy of his and
the email from the individual to Councillor Lowe’s employers. He
contended that Councillor Brookes had breached the Code of Conduct
and the General Obligations contained in the code, in that he:
failed to treat Councillor Lowe with respect – in that he called
him dishonest, a bully, a racist and generally attacked him; and
bullied Councillor Lowe by his offensive, intimidating,
malicious, insulting and humiliating behaviour. This behaviour
resulted in Councillor Brookes sending a copy of the malicious
email to Councillor Lowe’s employers that could have resulted
in him being dismissed;
(k) the email referred to Councillor Lowe having resigned from the police.
Councillor Lowe had told him that when he first came to the Council he
was a Special Constable. Councillor Brookes apparently made a
complaint about Councillor Lowe to the police, and he was
suspended. Councillor Lowe eventually resigned from the police. He
did not see that there was a conflict in Councillor Lowe being a Special
Constable and a member of Oakham Town Council;
(l) he believed that the appropriate action that Councillor Brookes should
have taken over any concerns regarding the conduct of Councillor
Lowe was to have raised them with him. He would have spoken to
both councillors and then if he had felt there was any substance to the
allegations gone to the Monitoring Officer. Broadcasting allegations
from an unknown source, which were not confirmed, was disrespectful
and disreputable behaviour by Councillor Brookes. He believed that
Councillor Brookes blogged the email because he wanted to attack
Councillor Lowe. It was intimidating to send the email to the employer
and the wide circulation list. He believed that Councillor Brookes’
behaviour and his personal attack on Councillor Lowe breached the
Code of Conduct and Seven Principles of Public Life, in particular
Integrity, Objectivity, Honesty and Respect;
(m) on 26 October 2015 Councillor Brookes circulated an email to many
people including him in his capacity as Mayor of Oakham. The
circulation group included the Clerk of the Council, the Chief Reporter
of the Rutland Times and Rutland Mercury, the MP and many of the
Oakham Town Councillors, as well as Democratic Services at Rutland
County Council. A copy of this email is provided to the investigation;
(n) the email claimed that Councillor Lowe had lost his job due to
Councillor Brookes’ previous emails to Councillor Lowe’s employers.
The email stated that previous allegations by Councillor Brookes that
Councillor Lowe had made homophobic remarks towards Councillor
Brookes had been ignored by the County Council. Councillor Brookes
said that he had highlighted Councillor Lowe’s conduct in and around
meetings, joking about “single mothers, Muslims and Gays”, stating it
was unacceptable for a Deputy Mayor to behave like that. Councillor
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 23 of 43
Brookes alleged that Councillors Lowe and Haley had taken part in
pre meeting racism and homophobia “fun”;
(o) he regarded this as a continuation of the vindictive campaign against
Councillor Lowe in an attempt to get him dismissed from his job. The
central point of the email was untrue as Councillor Lowe had not lost
his job. The attacks had greatly affected Councillor Lowe and he was
sure they were intended to damage Councillor Lowe as a councillor.
He regarded the comments regarding Councillor Haley as intimidatory
and untrue;
(p) he considered that this action breached the Council’s Code of
Conduct in that Councillor Brookes had not treated others with respect
by his continuous assault, bullying and intimidation of Councillor Lowe.
He believed that Councillor Brookes would continue until he could
achieve his obvious aim of Councillor Lowe being dismissed by his
employer and damaging his ability to act as a Town Councillor;
(q) when Councillor Martin Brookes came to the Council in May 2015 he
declined to provide Councillor Brookes with his personal e-mail
address, but asked him to use his Town Councillor address. The
majority, but not all Councillors, had the same view. This resulted in
two circulation lists for documentation: the first who did not wish
Councillor Brookes to have their email addresses and the second
group who had given their email address to Councillor Brookes. As
Chair of the Council he did not want to exclude Councillor Brookes,
but if he was to provide him with his private email address vindictive
emails and blogs would be sent about him.
Complainant Mr Beech
4.36 Mr Beech submitted a complaint dated 4 September 2015 in which he stated
that Councillor Brookes was personally attacking him on his Council blog,
Facebook pages and Twitter Accounts by making untrue statements.
4.37 Several blogs were referred to in Mr Beech’s complaint and they are attached
at DH 45 and DH 46
4.38 Mr Beech was interviewed by Mr Tasker and a signed statement was
obtained (attached at DH 47).
4.39 Mr Beech stated that:-
(a) he was a former Member of Oakham Town Council, having been first
elected to the Council about 12 years ago. He was Chairman of the
Council and Town Mayor in 2004/05. He resigned from the Council in
about 2006/07. He had been involved in a number of organisations
and charities in the town; these included being a Committee Member
of ABF the Soldiers Charity, Warning Zone, a Leicester based charity
project with young children on risk and consequence and a volunteer
with a group called Mostly Men on Monday which was mentoring and
socialising with military veterans. He also studied Criminology for three
years achieving a BA degree and graduating in 2012 from University
of Leicester;
(b) whilst he was a Member of the Town Council Martin Brookes was not
a councillor, therefore he did not know him at that time. It was in 2009
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 24 of 43
at the ‘Beating Retreat’ ceremony that he first spoke to Martin Brookes
(he was not a councillor at that time). The ‘Beating Retreat’ ceremony
took place in Oakham Market Place and Martin Brookes was
wandering round taking photographs and at times getting in the way.
He politely asked him not to wander round taking photographs during
the parade. From that point on he was labelled by Martin Brookes as a
bullying Tory and a homophobe;
(c) both these ‘labels’ were completely untrue. First, he had no political
affiliation and secondly as a proprietor of a Guest House it would be
contrary to his business interest to have any form of prejudice;
(d) since then Martin Brookes had made a number of public comments
about him and his wife. Martin Brookes was very adept at researching
an individual’s background for stories he could publish on his blog. If
Martin Brookes was unable to find anything he considered suitably
scandalous he would invent something. In one instance Martin
Brookes accused his wife of ‘mooning’ in the street, which at the time
was offensive and distressing to them both and completely untrue;
(e) he found that by ignoring Martin Brookes’ comments he tended to
leave him alone for a few months but, without provocation from him,
would then have another go. Unfortunately it was difficult to ignore
Martin Brookes’ blog as other people looked at it and told him what
was going on. Whilst it was obvious that the stories Martin Brookes
invented were completely untrue there had been instances when
comments had been made to him or his wife that there was ‘no smoke
without fire’. During this period Martin Brookes was not a Town
Councillor, as he was suspended for about two years from public
office after a Standards tribunal found him guilty, but his actions were
included for context leading to his blog of 3 September 2015;
(f) in his blog Councillor Brookes made an untrue allegation that he, as a
former Mayor, delayed the start of a Council Meeting to enable
councillors to attend the annual ‘Beating Retreat’ ceremony. Whilst he
was involved with the organisation of the ‘Beating Retreat’ he had
never made a request for the time of a Council meeting to be changed
to accommodate the attendance of councillors. The Regional Director
sent out invitations to various organisations and individuals, including
the Town Mayor, to attend the ‘Beating Retreat’ which started prompt
at 6.30 pm. He had never seen the invitation to the Town Council so
he did not know if it was just to the Mayor or if all the councillors were
invited. It had only recently become custom and practice for the
Council to start their meeting on that evening at 7.30 pm rather than
7 pm;
(g) it was difficult to explain how distressing it was to be the target of such
unjustified and vindictive abuse and allegations. Life in Oakham had
become difficult to the point that they had considered selling up and
moving. It was quite intimidating when Councillor Brookes wandered
round the town recording and filming everything;
(h) in the past he had reported Councillor Brookes to the Police who had
issued a first warning to Councillor Brookes in respect of his
harassment towards him and his wife.
Complainant Mr Harrison
4.40 Mr Harrison submitted a complaint dated 11 November 2015 in which he
stated that Councillor Brookes had made allegations and offensive comments
and depictions about him, these were published by Councillor Brookes on his
blog.
4.41 In Mr Harrison’s complaint he referred to several blogs and social media
entries. They are attached at DH 48, DH 49, DH 50, DH 51, DH 52, DH 53,
DH 54, and DH 55.
4.42 Mr Harrison was interviewed by Mr Oliver and a signed statement was
obtained (attached at DH 56).
4.43 Mr Harrison stated that:-
(a) he lived in Oakham and for 32 years had been a press photographer
until he retired four and a half years ago. He now did some work as a
taxi driver. He had previously been a member of Oakham Town
Council and had served as Mayor. He resigned from the Council as a
result of something Councillor Brookes put on his blog. He could not
stand being a councillor with him any longer. This related to a post
Martin Brookes made regarding a lady who had died of cancer of the
womb. Before her death Martin Brookes had posted offensive
comments to the effect that the cancer had been due to her sexual
appetite;
(b) Martin Brookes first took offence with him some 5 to 10 years ago and
at various points since then Councillor Brookes had posted offensive
comments about him. At the time he was Mayor, but working as a
photographer at the Remembrance Day Parade in Oakham, he was
with another professional photographer. They were taking
photographs and Martin Brookes kept nipping in front of them taking a
photograph and then thanking the people and saying they could go. It
seemed Councillor Brookes wanted to become a photographer. Mr
Harrison said to his fellow professional photographer, so that Brookes
could hear, that he didn’t know who Brookes was but if he wanted to
become a photographer he could show him by jostling him as
professional photographers do at events. Brookes took offence and
shortly after wrote that he was the nastiest Mayor there had been in
Oakham;
(c) Councillor Brookes once took a photograph of him and his partner and
posted the photograph on his blog in black and white. Brookes said
this was because the colour of his partner’s clothes were poorly
chosen and she didn’t look good in them. It was just designed to be
insulting;
(d) his view was that if Councillor Brookes was trained properly and was
able to modify his behaviour he would make a good Councillor.
Councillor Brookes was good at research having established the true
cost of a local skate park and that payments had been made without
authorisation. Unfortunately, when Councillor Brookes disagreed with
other councillors he made offensive remarks, often on his blog, started
bullying people and never leaving them alone;
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 26 of 43
(e) the Council had been made a laughing stock and brought into
disrepute as a result of the comments Councillor Brookes made about
it. It seemed the comments had got worse since a court case against
Councillor Brookes failed. Councillor Brookes did not know the
meaning of the word ‘offensive’. He anticipated that Councillor
Brookes would make worse and worse allegations against him once
he found out that he had made a statement;
(f) Councillor Brookes did not appreciate other points of view, made false
allegations and held unfounded conspiracy theories. By posting
untruths on the web Councillor Brookes showed no respect for other
councillors, did not display leadership and made personally damaging
untruthful comments about his colleagues;
(g) the blogs were headed Councillor Martin Brookes, Town Council.
Documents were posted and the blog refered to matters that he dealt
with as a councillor. He had no doubt that Councillor Brookes was
acting in his capacity as a Town Councillor when the items were
posted on the blog. If Councillor Brookes was commenting privately he
would say that it was his personal opinion and not head the blogs
Councillor Brookes;
(h) on 13 September 2012 Councillor Brookes published a blog entitled
“Former Oakham Mayor Mr Harrison calls me a Scum Bag and
threatens me”. Councillor Brookes had falsely alleged that he had
been wined and dined at tax-payers expense at St Georges Barracks.
In fact he attended to take photographs for the Leicester Mercury. In
2012 he and several others had gone to the police about Councillor
Brookes’ blog and his untruths. He didn’t expect it to result in a
prosecution. He had never threatened Councillor Brookes;
(i) on 27 November 2013 Councillor Brookes’ blogged “Oakham Town
Council Former Oakham Mayor Mr Harrison, ‘Brookes, I hate the
bastard with a vengeance”. This was true, he did hate him. Somehow
Councillor Brookes had accessed a private email he sent to Mr Beech
which was always intended to be private. He had never published
allegations about Councillor Brookes.
(j) on 1 December 2013 Councillor Brookes blogged “Homophobic
Former Mayor Mr Harrison enjoys sharing and commenting” As far as
he could remember this was the first time Councillor Brookes alleged
that he was homophobic. He was not homophobic; some of his friends
were gay. He was invited by the local MP to photograph his civil
ceremony to another man. If he was homophobic he would not have
gone and would not have been invited. Councillor Brookes was gay
and alleged that anything he said against Councillor Brookes was
homophobic. He had never sent an email calling Councillor Brookes
Martin Bollock or Martin Borrocks as alleged. He had never emailed or
posted a picture stating that a male was Martin Brookes’ boyfriend, he
had never seen the photograph, he had just been told about the blog.
A week before Councillor Brookes posted the blog Councillor Brookes
told him that his email had been hacked. He did not know how
Councillor Brookes had come to such a conclusion. He had never
received or sent hate email;
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 27 of 43
(k) on or about 26 October 2015 the Town Council published that he and
John Michael Kennedy were candidates for the North West Ward on
the Town Council. On 26 October Councillor Brookes blogged
“Oakham Town Council Election Oakham North West 19th November
2105 also another resignation today”. He was told that there was an
extract probably from the Town Council website of the nominees for
election, this had his full name and then in capitals “PLEASE DO NOT
VOTE FOR Mr Harrison”. This was clearly Councillor Brookes stating
that electors should not vote for him. That post did not make any
allegations about him. He had not spoken to Councillor Brookes about
being nominated, Councillor Brookes must have chosen to blog about
him because of what had gone on in the past;
(l) on 27 October 2015 Councillor Brookes posted a totally offensive blog
“Mr Harrison Candidate for Oakham Town Council By-Election Vote
for Mr Harrison and support hate”. Councillor Brookes published a
photo shopped montage picture of his face, probably taken from his
Facebook profile, and a photograph of his Mercedes taxi. The
registration of the taxi is KN08 but in the photograph had been
changed to KN0B, he and others had taken this to mean “knob”, an
offensive term. The picture said a vote for Mr Harrison was a vote to
support hate, homophobia and racism, don’t vote for Mr Harrison this
November Oakham Town Council By-Election. In the supporting
photograph Councillor Brookes repeated the “I hate the bastard with a
vengeance” email. It also stated that he was spoken to by
Leicestershire Police after he posted threats of violence against
Councillor Brookes online;
(m) this was an allegation of him being racist which was untrue and
without foundation. The term hate gave the impression that he had
carried out acts against vulnerable groups. These were, in his view,
false statements of fact about his character or conduct whilst he was
an election candidate. The purpose of publishing the statements was
in his belief to adversely affect how many votes he would get;
(n) he had never been spoken to by the Police and had never posted
threats of violence against Councillor Brookes. These false allegations
had to fall beneath the principles of Standards in Public Life which
Councillors were expected to follow. Councillor Brookes was using his
position to confer a disadvantage on his election prospects;
(o) the supporting post said that he was named along with Mr Beech in a
case. If that was true he was never aware he had been named and he
never contributed to or assisted in any blogs. The supporting articles
allege that another person was carrying out his dirty work by making
numerous telephone calls of a homophobic and threatening nature.
The article alleged that, with Mr Beech, he was a partner in crime with
another councillor. According to the article this blog had been
described by a district judge as being homophobic, crude and crass.
He had never contributed or taken part in any blogs by this person. He
was not a partner in crime. It was disrespectful and insulting to make
these false allegations;
(p) he had never met this person and never knew he existed until
Councillor Brookes put this on the blog. He believed that Councillor
Brookes had made assumptions about a connection between him and
this person;
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 28 of 43
(q) he had been told that on 27 October 2105 a Facebook post had
shown the same poster with the quote “A vote for Mr Harrison is a
support for hate”. He also thought this was designed to damage his
taxi business. He had also been told that on 30 October 2015
Councillor Brookes posted a poster on Twitter again aligning him to
hate, homophobia and racism;
(r) at about lunchtime on 19 November 2105, polling day, he saw
Councillor Brookes in the street near the Council building. Councillor
Brookes was trying to take a photograph of him. He went up to
Councillor Brookes who said “You said you hate me”. He told him the
truth saying “Yes, its true I do, and I always will”.;
(s) he was unsuccessful in the election. He had no way of knowing if the
publicity and false allegations adversely affected his chances. He did
know that the successful candidate was reported on Councillor
Brookes’ blog as having resigned on 22 December 2015 as a result of
MB which he and Councillor Brookes took to mean Martin Brookes;
(t) he reported the allegations made by Councillor Brookes to the police
under Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
Apparently this went to the CPS. It was not proceeded with. He was
told the behaviour had “gone to the edge but not over it”. He believed
the Police were treating Councillor Brookes as a vulnerable adult and
did not dare do anything against him. He did not believe Councillor
Brookes was a vulnerable adult. He thought he had a medical
condition and must be stopped from saying these things as a
councillor.
(u) in summary, it was unfitting for a Councillor to make such allegations
about him, such as that he was homophobic, racist and had been
questioned by the police over such actions. This was especially the
case when he was up for election. He believed the remarks were
designed to damage his chances as a candidate. He believed that
Councillor Brookes brought the Council into disrepute and repeatedly
breached the Code of Conduct by making such offensive comments
and depictions.
Other complainants
4.44 Another person submitted a complaint dated 17 August 2015 in which they
stated that Councillor Brookes had breached confidentiality on two occasions
by publishing details of a report on Aldermen and details of a lease and
licence associated with land at Brooke Hill. The councillor also stated that
Councillor Brookes sent a vindictive email to Councillor Lowe; secretly
recorded a member of the public and blogged the recording and secretly
recorded Councillor Dewis outside a committee meeting.
4.45 The complainant was interviewed by Mr Oliver but subsequently requested
that they no longer be involved in the investigation.
4.46 A further person submitted a complaint dated 17 August 2015 in which they
stated that Councillor Brookes had breached confidentiality on two occasions
by publishing details of a report on Aldermen and details of a lease and
licence associated with land at Brooke Hill.
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 29 of 43
4.47 That complainant declined to be interviewed and subsequently requested
that they no longer be involved in the investigation.
Mr White
4.48 Mr White was interviewed by Mr Oliver and a signed statement was obtained
(attached at DH 57).
4.49 Mr W stated that:-
(a) he had been employed as the Clerk to Oakham Town Council since
2004. He was contracted to work 11 hours per week for the Council.
(b) an Assurance Review was carried out by Streets Accountants which
he emailed to councillors on 14 August 2015, including Councillor
Martin Brookes. He had been the main point of contact for Streets
Accountants. The report was commissioned by the Council. When the
Council received the report written permission was given by Streets to
publish the report on the Oakham Town Council website. The
permission however forbade the report being published on all other
platforms including social media;
(c) he did not discuss the restrictions with Councillor Brookes at the time.
He would have forwarded the email to Councillor Brookes on a
separate email circulation to some of the other councillors, but on the
same date. The report in itself was not confidential but disclosure was
prohibited due to the restrictions placed upon the Council by Streets
Accountants. He informed the councillors within the email of the
prohibitions on publishing the document. The email included
instructions to councillors that if they did have a Facebook page, etc.
and they wished to highlight the report, then they could provide a link
to the report on the Town Council website;
(d) Councillor Brookes blogged an exempt item regarding Brooke Hill and
quickly the Council had an email from The Woodland Trust that they
were not going to negotiate with the Council anymore;
(e) he normally assessed the confidentiality of documentation for Council
meetings on the Public Interest. Usually legal matters, staffing issues
were confidential as disclosure would be prejudicial. An example of
this was the item regarding Brooke Hill School, which was exempt
because of the existence of a legal matter; a restrictive covenant. The
proposal was that the Town Council acted as the leaseholder for a car
park. This was a commercially sensitive matter as insurance was
sourced against the owner of restrictive covenants. If the owner had
become aware then he might have been more likely to make a claim,
and as a result the item was confidential, and the item was treated as
an exempt item;
(f) his role in such a case was to make a judgement on the confidentiality
on papers circulated prior to meeting, and then members decided at
the meeting. Items were sent out on red paper and marked
confidential. An agenda item preceded the item for members to decide
if the item should be exempt or not;
Page 29 of 43
(g) members were getting information as Town Councillors that members
of the public did not have access to. Councillors only got information
such as the papers regarding Brooke Hill by virtue of being councillors.
By publishing confidential items that they obtained as a result of being
a councillor, members could not reasonably claim that they may treat
the information as if they were a member of the public and it was in
the public domain;
(h) Councillor Lucas raised an item regarding recommendations for
Aldermen. He marked the item up in advance of the meeting and
circulation to members as confidential at the request of Councillor
Lucas. Two people were named in the report. The report went on red
paper, but despite this Councillor Brookes placed the report on his
blog;
(i) as it happened Oakham Town Council was not eligible to make
nominations for Aldermen, but the point was that members had voted
at the meeting that the item should be exempt, and not disclosed to
the public or press;
(j) the selection processes to co-opt new members onto the Council
involved a private meeting or discussion between councillors to
discuss prospective councillors. The decision had to be decided by a
resolution. He was not present at these private meetings between
councillors, but if he had attended as a councillor or was a prospective
Councillor he would have expect that the confidentiality of the
discussions within the meetings would be respected;
(k) the Chairman was invited to the Beating of the Retreat every year. It
was a popular event in the town and the Council had always moved
back the meeting 30 minutes or so, to accommodate the ceremony.
He and the Chairman moved the timing of the meeting to
accommodate this.
Councillor Martin Brookes
4.50 Councillor Brookes was given the opportunity to be interviewed as part of the
investigation. The interview would have given Councillor Brookes the
opportunity to comment on the allegations made against him and to provide
any contextual background. The interview would have also provided
Councillor Brookes with the opportunity to suggest other witnesses who may
be able to provide balancing evidence.
4.51 Councillor Brookes did submit an initial response to the complaints by email
dated 2 October 2015. (a copy is attached at DH 58). He also provided an
explanation as to his conduct when he made his self referral (attached DH
18).
4.52 On 8 October 2015 he emailed the Investigating Officer declining to be
interviewed. (Attached DH 59)
4.53 However Councillor Brookes did provide a response to the allegations within
his blog. (Attached DH 60 and DH 61).
4.54 In response to the complaint made by Mr Harrison Councillor Brookes replied
to the Deputy MO’s letter of 16 December 2015 received by them on 21
December 2015 (copy attached at DH 62).
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 31 of 43
5. Summary of the material facts
5.1 Since being elected as a Member of Oakham Town Council Councillor
Brookes has on a number of occasions challenged the Council and other
councillors over the conduct of Council business. From recordings of
meetings it is evident that Councillor Brookes challenges the authority of the
Chairman of the meeting.
5.2 A consequence of Councillor Brookes’ often disruptive behaviour has been
that some of the other councillors have refused to work with him. This is
evidenced by the fact that when the Council reviewed its membership of
Working Groups Councillor Brookes was not appointed to any. This was
despite him nominating himself for positions on Groups but on each occasion
his nomination was not seconded (copy meeting transcript attached at DH
63).
5.3 On three occasions Councillor Brookes has posted information provided in
confidence on the internet. On one occasion Councillor Brookes was given
confidential information about a lease for land at Brooke Hill, Oakham. On 16
July 2015 details of the confidential information was posted on Councillor
Brookes’ blog. On the second occasion the Town Council considered a
confidential report about Aldermen. At the meeting of the Town Council held
on 22 July 2015 it was resolved that the item be dealt with as confidential. At
the end of the meeting the confidential reports were collected in. On the same
date the report was published in its entirety on Councillor Brookes’ blog. On
the third occasion Councillor Brookes published information provided by
Streets Accountants despite being informed that it should not be posted on
social media.
5.4 During the time Councillor Brookes has been a Town Councillor he has
operated a blog under the identity Councillor Martin Brookes. The blog carries
information about a number of areas of interest locally including jobs, local
events, the local Member of Parliament and the Town Council. Each of these
subjects, and others, are under separate headings on the blog. Posts are
made to the blog on an almost daily basis.
5.5 Under the Oakham Town Council heading there have been numerous posts
of email exchanges between Councillor Brookes, the Town Council, other
Town Councillors and other individuals. Details have also been posted of
activities of the Town Council; these have included video recordings of
meetings.
5.6 In respect of the complaints emails and posts on Councillor Brookes’ blog
have been found as follows:-
25 June and 25 July 2105- post about Mr Beech;
16 July 2015 - posts regarding the Brooke Hill Academy and details of
the lease or licence and that the matter was going to be considered as
an exempt item;
23 July 2015 - post about a Council meeting, this included a copy of a
confidential report on Aldermen for Rutland;
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 32 of 43
2 August 2015 - post about Councillor Lucas with a link to a recording
of a conversation between Councillor Lucas and Councillor Brookes;
4 August 2015 - post headed “... Most Foul Audio the Joy of being an
Oakham Town Councillor” with a link to an audio recording;
10 August 2015 - post about Councillor Dewis with a link to a video
recording of a conversation between Councillor Dewis and Councillor
Brookes;
15 August 2105 - post about a report from Streets Accountants which
stated “Streets Accountants have asked me not to publish their
report”. A copy of the report is included in the post;
17 August 2015 - email to Oakham Town Council regarding the
Council’s accounts;
18 August 2015 - email, recipients not identified, regarding Fun Day
with comments about Councillor Lucas;
20 August 2015 - post regarding a meeting of the Town Council held
on 19 August 2015 with comments about Councillor Lucas;
22 August 2015 - a post headed “Councillor Lowe Oakham Deputy
Mayor could lose job ... allegation of Dishonesty, Racism, Bullying and
Homophobia”;
1 September 2015 - post about the cost of investigating the
complaints with a repost of an item about Councillor Lowe allegedly
breaking the law whist a special constable;
3 September 2015 - a post about a Town Council meeting on 9
September 2015 in which it is stated “The meeting start time has been
delayed for the benefit of a former Mayor who wants councillors to
attend his beating of the retreat in the market place. A request he
makes each year and is granted but never approved at full council.”;
26 October 2015 - email to numerous individuals stating “Cllr Lowe
has lost his job …”;
October to December- a number of posts about Mr Harrison making
allegations of homophobia, racism and hate crimes.
5.7 A review of Councillor Brookes’ blog has revealed a significant number of
posts that have not been referred to in the complaints under investigation.
These include comments and allegations about Oakham Town Councillors
that show a pattern of behaviour by Councillor Brookes consistent with those
matters referred to in the complaints.
Page 32 of 43
6. Reasoning as to whether there have been failures
Official Capacity
6.1 The Council’s Code of Conduct has the following section which sets out when
the code applies
“3 When Does The Code Apply?
The Code applies whenever a person is acting in his/her official
capacity as a member of the Council or a co-opted member in the
conduct of the business or acting as a representative of the Council.
The Code does not apply when a person claims to act or gives the
impression of acting as a representative of the Council.”
6.2 When a member is acting in an official capacity was one of the central issues
in Livingstone v APE [2006] EWHC 2533. Collins J held that the Mayor of
London was not acting in an official capacity when responding to being “door
stepped” by a journalist when leaving the offices of the Greater London
Authority.
6.3 The judgement was considered in detail in Bartlett, Milton Keynes Council
(2008) APE 0401 in an appeal from the local standards committee. In the
Case Tribunal’s view, the Livingstone judgement established that for a
councillor to be acting in an official capacity:-
(a) the councillor should be engaged in business directly related to the
Council or constituents;
(b) the link between the councillor’s office and the conduct should have a
degree of formality.
6.4 In the recent Upper Tribunal case of MC v Standards Committee of LB
Richmond [2011] UKUT 232 (AAC) Mr Ward J made some interesting obiter
comments about the meaning of the phrase “acting as a representative of
your authority” in paragraph 2(1)(b) of the Code.
6.5 The appellant had been adjudged by the Standards Hearings Sub-Committee
to have breached paragraphs 3(1) (respect for others) and 3(2)(b) (bullying)
of the Code through his behaviour towards Council officers in sending out
certain emails and was suspended for 28 days, a period which had been
served by the time of the appeal. His application for leave to appeal on the
basis that he was not acting in his official capacity when he sent those emails
had been turned down by the First Tier Tribunal (FtT). The Upper Tribunal
allowed that appeal and remitted the case to the FtT for a hearing. During the
course of that appeal the judge said the following:
“When one is acting (etc) “as a representative” of an authority is ..... a
matter for determination by the tribunal of fact (i.e. a standards
committee, or, on appeal, the First-tier Tribunal). I do however
consider that, reading the Model Code as a whole, it is evident that
“representative” is not to be equated to “member”. The Model Code
uses both terms and must be taken to have done so deliberately.
Accordingly, merely to act, claim to act or give the impression one is
acting (etc) as a member is in my view of itself not sufficient unless
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 34 of 43
there is material on which the tribunal of fact can properly conclude
that one is acting (etc) specifically “as a representative” of the
authority.”
This suggests that to make a finding that a member was acting, claiming to
act or giving the impression that he or she was acting as a representative of
their authority there must be something about their conduct which amounts to
more than simply acting, claiming to act or giving the impression that one is
acting as a member.
6.6 Where official capacity is raised as an issue in cases it would appear that the
Upper Tribunal is going to expect the body hearing the case to address
official capacity in future by making reference to the conduct of the member
that amounts to acting, etc, as a representative of the authority.
6.7 This could have significant ramifications for member’s activity on blogs, twitter
and other internet sites as well as in election or other political material. It is
unlikely that most blog, etc postings will contain content that holds the
member out to be acting as a representative of the authority rather than
simply a member unless that content in some way gives the impression that
the member is speaking for the council. However, depending on the
circumstances such communications might be regarded as conducting the
business of the office of member. This is because it is reasonable to regard
communicating with constituents at large about issues of local political
interest as being part of the business of the office of a councillor.
6.8 In all of the cases referred to it is predominantly activity by Councillor Brookes
on his blog that is under consideration. First, I am mindful that, unusually, the
Town Council’s Code of Conduct makes specific mention that the code does
not apply when a person claims to act or gives the impression of acting as a
representative of the Council. However, the significant part of that paragraph
is ‘The Code applies whenever a person is acting in his/her official capacity
as a member of the Council or’. Therefore, having regard to the comments set
out above on official capacity the test is whether Councillor Brookes’
communications might be regarded as conducting the business of the office
of member.
6.9 It is without question that whilst posting confidential information Councillor
Brookes was only in receipt of that information in his capacity as a member of
the Council. Therefore in those instances I have concluded that Councillor
Brookes was acting in an official capacity.
6.10 When considering the posts which have comments about other individuals I
have given careful consideration to capacity. The factors I have taken into
account are that the blog is attributed to Councillor Martin Brookes. The posts
that have been the subject of the complaints have been published under the
Oakham Town Council heading. In every case the content of the posts relate
to the business of the Council or to other Town Councillors. For these
reasons I have concluded that Councillor Brookes was not only giving the
impression of acting in an official capacity he was conducting the business of
the office of member therefore the code of conduct did apply.
Page 34 of 43
Confidential Information
6.11 The council’s code of conduct states:
“4.1 A member of the Council has the following obligations. He or she
shall
4.1.5 Not disclose information which is confidential or where
disclosure is prohibited.”
6.12 There are four instances where it is alleged Councillor Brookes disclosed
confidential information. Whilst there is ample evidence that the information in
question was disclosed it is necessary to consider whether the information
was actually confidential or if its disclosure was prohibited.
6.13 In the first case the Council was entering into negotiations regarding the lease
or licence of land to enable the provision of car parking at Brook Hill
Academy. The Town Council had received legal advice that the disclosure of
details of the negotiations may be detrimental. The information was provided
to the Town Councillors with the understanding that this would be considered
after determining whether the public and press should be excluded from the
meeting. Before the meeting Councillor Brookes published the information on
his blog setting out that it would need to be an exempt item and then going
into some detail about the negotiations and a covenant on the land. It is
therefore evident that Councillor Brookes deliberately ignored the request for
confidentiality and breached the code of conduct.
6.14 The second incident related to a report about Aldermen that had been
circulated on red paper which was the Town Council’s practice when dealing
with confidential reports. The meeting of the Town Council held on 22 July
2015 resolved that the report would be considered in private. Following the
meeting Councillor Brookes posted a lengthy report of the Council meeting
which included comments about the Aldermen report and derogatory remarks
about Councillor Lucas who had raised the matter. A full copy of the report
displayed in red with ‘confidential’ marked across the page was posted on the
blog. It is therefore evident that again Councillor Brookes deliberately ignored
the request for confidentiality and breached the code of conduct.
6.15 The third incident related to a report prepared for the Council by Streets
Accountants. The report was circulated to Members of the Council prior to
consideration at a meeting held on 19 August 2015. A copy of the report was
posted on the Council’s website. Members of the Council were informed that
Streets did not want the report publishing on social media apparently to
reduce the risk of the content being altered. Councillor Brookes posted a blog
on 15 August 2015 setting out that Streets Accountants had asked him not to
publish their report and that the report had been published on the Council’s
website and was attached to the public agenda for the meeting. Councillor
Brookes then posted copies of each page of the report with his comments.
Whilst I can understand why Streets would not have wanted the report
altering I do not consider it a breach of confidentiality to publish a document
that is already available on the Council’s website. Nor can I find any
justification for Streets Accountants or the Town Council to prohibit the
publication of a document that is in the public domain. I therefore conclude
that on this occasion Councillor Brookes did not breach the code of conduct.
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 36 of 43
6.16 The final incident related to information posted on the internet on 20 August
2015 following a meeting of the Town Council the previous day. Within a
detailed report of the meeting Councillor Brookes refers to a community hub
and speculates whether the tenant will be Councillor H. He then goes on to
allege that Councillor Lucas referred to Councillor H as a one trip pony after
the interview for co-option onto the Council. This was a reference to a
comment Councillor Lucas was alleged to have made at a confidential
meeting of the Council. Clearly the comment on the blog was unnecessary
and in my opinion inappropriate, however I have considered carefully the
issue of breaching confidentiality in this case. I am mindful that the comment
made by Councillor Brookes in his blog did not disclose information pertinent
to the reason the applications for co-option onto the Council was considered
in private session. I therefore conclude that whilst the alleged comment was
made in a confidential meeting Councillor Brookes did not disclose
confidential information on this occasion.
Respect
6.17 The council’s code of conduct states:
“4.1 A member of the Council has the following obligations. He or she
shall:-
4.1.1 Behave in such a way that a reasonable person would regard
as respectful.”
6.18 Under the Code, a member will have failed to treat others with respect if they
direct unwarranted, unreasonable or demeaning behaviour against another.
The requirement to treat others with respect must be viewed objectively.
Account should be taken of the member’s intent and how their behaviour
would reasonably be perceived.
6.19 Treating people with respect was covered in the former 2007 model code of
conduct; of relevance is The Standards Board for England Case Review 2010
(2011 edition) which provides guidance by indicating a ‘rule of thumb’
comparison. Q15 on page 26 of the Case Review advises that:-
“A very clear line has to be drawn between the Code of Conduct’s
requirement of respect for others, including members of the authority
with opposing views, and the freedom to disagree with the views and
opinions of others. In a democracy, members of public bodies should
be able to express disagreement publicly with each other.
A rule of thumb is expressed in this comparison:
“You’re talking drivel” is likely to be an acceptable expression of
disagreement.
Calling someone a “incompetent moron”, on the other hand, is
more likely to be a failure to comply with paragraph 3(1).
We can see that the first comment is aimed at the expression of an
idea or argument. The second is aimed at the person and their
personal characteristics”.
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 37 of 43
It is therefore the personalisation of comments that cause the user to breach
the Code.
6.20 In addition, decisions of the former Adjudication Panel for England have
indicated that the threshold for failure to treat another with respect must be
set at a level that allows for the passion and frustration that often
accompanies political debate and the discussion of the efficient running of a
council. It should also be set within the context of who was involved in the
exchange and the extent to which the words were malicious, bullying, unfair,
unreasonable or demeaning.
6.21 In this case there are a number of specific instances referred to in the
complaints where it is alleged that Councillor Brookes’ conduct has been
disrespectful. In addition I was asked to review Councillor Brookes’ blog for
other examples of inappropriate posts. It was evident that a significant
number of the items under the Oakham Town Council heading involved
exchanges between Councillor Brookes and other Town Councillors. For the
purposes of this report I am going to concentrate on the specific issues raised
in the complaints and outlined in the summary of material facts in paragraph 5
above. These are also identified in the summary of complaints attached at
DH 19.
6.22 The first instance is a post on Councillor Brookes’ blog headed “Councillor
Lucas MBE ‘No I don’t as far as you are concerned.’ Oakham Town Council”.
This post includes a link to an audio recording of a conversation between
Councillor Lucas and Councillor Brookes that Councillor Brookes recorded.
The blog reflects the content of the conversation which took place when
Councillor Brookes approached Councillor Lucas at a Brass Band event in the
town. Whilst the post seems to be aimed at besmirching Councillor Lucas the
actual content is not entirely unreasonable in the context of the conversation
between the two councillors. I have therefore concluded that whilst I consider
Councillor Brookes conduct to be inappropriate I do not consider it is so
unreasonable to be a breach of the code.
6.23 There are a number of other instances where it is alleged that Councillor
Brookes made inappropriate comments about Councillor Lucas in emails and
on his blog. Councillor Lucas refers to an email from Councillor Brookes
dated 18 August 2015 in which Councillor Brookes states “Cllr Lucas has
taken a back seat refusing to do most things her words ‘I am not doing the
work’ and then adding ‘it is such a shame Adam has to do everything’. Cllr
Lucas at the last meeting sat with her back to me and discussed what she
wanted with Cllr Lowe. I can understand why Councillor Lucas is concerned
about this in the wider context of Councillor Brookes’ continual reporting of
meetings and inappropriate comments. However, whilst this appears to be a
personal attack on Councillor Lucas I do not consider the comments in this
email to be so unreasonable or demeaning to constitute a breach of the code
of conduct.
6.24 Councillor Lucas also refers to an email dated 17 August 2015 sent by
Councillor Brookes to the Town Council. This email was copied to a number
of individuals outside the Council including the media. In the email Councillor
Brookes states “Cllr Dewis has been obstructive and dishonest… Cllr Dewis
also lied and misled public when he lied to the press…” In the email
Councillor Brookes also refers to a dishonest Mayor with a lot to hide. In this
case the comments are personal and make very serious allegations without
substance that are demeaning. I therefore conclude that in this instance
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 38 of 43
Councillor Brookes did breach the code of conduct by not treating Councillor
Dewis with respect.
6.25 A blog similar to the one above was posted by Councillor Brookes on 10
August 2015 under the heading “Oakham Mayor Councillor Dewis Lack of
Basic Manners”. This has a link to a video recording recorded by Councillor
Brookes when he attended a Staffing Committee meeting at the Council.
Councillor Brookes’ comments accompanying the post are his opinion of how
he was received at that meeting. Whilst he alleges that Councillor Dewis did
not treat him with courtesy his comments about Councillor Dewis are not so
unreasonable to be a breach of the code of conduct.
6.26 On 22 August 2015 Councillor Brookes posted an item on his blog under the
heading “Councillor Lowe Oakham Deputy Mayor could lose his job .....
allegations of Dishonesty, Racism, Bullying and Homophobia”. The comments
in the blog referred to allegations made by a former employee of a company
who had contacted Councillor Brookes with serious allegations about
Councillor Lowe. These allegations had no relevance to Councillor Lowe’s
role as a Town Councillor. Councillor Brookes appears to have made no
attempt to establish the veracity of the allegations before posting the
information on his blog. In addition Councillor Brookes circulated the
allegations in emails including to Councillor Lowe’s employer.
6.27 In a further posting on his blog on 1 September 2015 Councillor Brookes
makes reference to Councillor Lowe. The entry is about the cost to taxpayers
as a result of the complaints made against Councillor Brookes. In the post
Councillor Brookes refers to an entry on his blog of 10 May 2015 and states
this was made before he signed his papers to become a Councillor. However
he then copied the same entry on the post of 1 September 2105 when he was
a Councillor. In that post Councillor Brookes alleges that Councillor Lowe
broke the law whilst he was a Special Constable with Leicestershire Police.
There is no evidence of Councillor Lowe breaking the law as alleged by
Councillor Brookes.
6.28 Closely related to this matter are emails Councillor Brookes has sent making
allegations about Councillor Lowe. In particular Councillor Dewis has referred
to an email dated 26 October 2015 addressed to him at the Town Council.
The email was copied to a number of other recipients including the local
Member of Parliament, other Town Councillors, the Town Clerk and what
appears to be the local press. The subject of the email is “Deputy Mayor” and
the content commences “Councillor Lowe has lost his job ... after a former
work college (sic) sent me emails containing allegations saying Councillor
Lowe was racist, bullying, homophobic and dishonest. Later in the email
Councillor Brookes states “We won’t know which of the allegations were
upheld and led to the lose (sic) of Councillor Lowe’s Job because of his rights
to employment privacy. The same privacy he relies on when people ask the
question about why he left Leicestershire Police.”
6.29 In all these cases relating to Councillor Lowe I have concluded that the posts
and email were malicious and without any evidence to substantiate the
allegations being made. I believe there were other courses of action open to
Councillor Brookes to deal with the matter if he had reasonable grounds to
make such allegations. To post the information on a publically available
website and to widely circulate his email was inappropriate and was not in a
manner that a reasonable person would regard as respectful. I therefore
conclude that Councillor Brookes breached the code of conduct on a number
of occasions in respect of his blogs about Councillor Lowe.
Page 38 of 43
6.30 A further incident relates to a complaint received by the Council involving an
individual in Cutts Close Park. Councillor Brookes responded to an allegation
that he had approached a user of the park by visiting the complainant’s home
and secretly recording an exchange between him and a member of the public.
A copy of the recording was then placed on Councillor Brookes’ blog under
the heading “... Oakham Most Foul Audio the Joy of Being an Oakham Town
Councillor”. Whilst there is some uncertainty regarding the allegation and
whether the council dealt with it appropriately it is my opinion that Councillor
Brookes’ response was totally inappropriate. Regardless of the individual’s
comments towards Councillor Brookes, under the circumstances it was not
treating that person with respect to approach him at his home in a
confrontational and demanding manner. It was also disrespectful to post a
secretly recorded conversation on his blog under the heading set out above. I
therefore conclude that Councillor Brookes did not treat that person with
respect and breached the code of conduct.
6.31 The most recent matter referred for consideration relates to a number of posts
on Councillor Brookes’ blog about a candidate at a By-election for the Council
held on 19 November 2015.
6.32 During the election period and after the election at least five entries were
made on the blog which contained allegations about Mr Harrison. In addition
Councillor Brookes posted comments about Mr Harrison on his Facebook
page. These included comments about Mr Harrison being part of a hate
campaign, allegations that he had been involved with other individuals calling
him names such as Martin Bollock. Whilst Mr Harrison has acknowledged that
he hates Councillor Brookes and always will there is no evidence that the
serious allegations made by Councillor Brookes about Mr Harrison have any
substance.
6.33 Part of Councillor Brookes’ campaign to discredit Mr Harrison as a candidate
at the election involved a photograph of Mr Harrison’s taxi that had been
manipulated. In the photograph the number plate had been changed from
KN08 to look like KN0B.
6.34 This conduct involved individual acts that a reasonable person would not
regard as respectful. Taken as a pattern of behaviour there is no doubt that
Councillor Brookes did not treat Mr Harrison with respect when he made such
allegations on a public forum. Whether these comments had an impact on the
outcome of the election is outside the scope of this investigation. I note that
this has been considered by the Police in the context of the Representation of
the People Act. I have therefore concluded that Councillor Brookes did breach
the code of conduct by not treating Mr Harrison with respect.
6.35 In conclusion on treating others with respect I have concluded that Councillor
Brookes breached the code of conduct on numerous occasions by making
false allegations about individuals in emails and on his blog. The effect of
these allegations could adversely affect the reputation of the individuals
concerned.
Bullying or intimidatory
6.36 The Council’s code states:-
“4.1 A member of the Council has the following obligations. He or she
shall:-
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 40 of 43
4.1.2 Not act in a way which a reasonable person would regard as
bullying or intimidatory”
6.37 It is alleged that Councillor Brookes’ general conduct towards other
councillors is bullying and intimidatory.
6.38 Bullying was specifically identified as a conduct issue in the previous 2007
model code of conduct and whilst not defined bullying and intimidation is
referred to in the Standards Board Guidance on the Code issued in May
2007. It states on page 9 of the Guidance that:-
“Bullying may be characterized as offensive, intimidating, malicious,
insulting or humiliating behaviour. Such behaviour may happen once
or be part of a pattern of behaviour directed at a weaker person or
person over whom you have some actual or perceived influence.
Bullying behaviour attempts to undermine an individual or a group of
individuals, is detrimental to their confidence and capability, and may
adversely affect their health.”
This can be contrasted with legitimate challenges which a member can make
in challenging policy or scrutinizing performance.
6.39 I have considered Councillor Brookes’ conduct towards other councillors, in
particular Councillor Lowe, Councillor Dewis and Councillor Haley and whilst I
have concluded in some instances it was inappropriate and disrespectful I
now have to consider whether it constituted bullying. I am mindful of the
guidance set out above and note that bullying is behaviour or a pattern of
behaviour directed at a weaker person or person over whom you have some
actual or perceived influence. Whilst Councillor Brookes may make comments
that are demeaning, undermining or disrespectful he is not in a position to
bully fellow councillors. That is, he has no actual or perceived influence over
fellow councillors.
6.40 In addition to the allegations of bullying and intimidation of other Councillors
there is the allegation made by Mr Beech to consider. I am mindful that much
of Mr Beech’s evidence relates to material published by Councillor Brookes
prior to him being elected to the Council in 2012. I therefore have to consider
the more recent blogs of 25 June and 25 July 2015. I am mindful that the level
of acceptable conduct towards a member of the public is generally accepted
as being of a higher standard than is acceptable towards a fellow Councillor.
Having considered the two blog entries referred to it is evident that the
content is unnecessary and unacceptable. It is evident that the publication of
such material has no specific purpose other than to intimidate Mr Beech.
6.41 Intimidation is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as “frighten or
overawe, especially so as to coerce into doing something”. I have considered
whether by virtue of the pattern of behaviour Councillor Brookes has
intimidated the subjects of his allegations on his blog. It is evident that the
individuals concerned feel harassed by his actions it is not so evident that
anyone is frightened. Further there is little suggestion that the purpose of
Councillor Brookes’ behaviour is to coerce individuals into doing something.
6.42 Having regard to the definition of intimidation on balance I have concluded
that the content of Councillor Brookes numerous posts and emails regarding
other members of the Town Council have not been intimidatory. However, for
the reasons set out above I do consider that Councillor Brookes has
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 41 of 43
published material that is intended to intimidate Mr Beech and he has
therefore breached the code of conduct.
6.43 I therefore conclude on balance that Councillor Brookes has breached that
part of the code which requires members to not act in a way which would be
regarded as bullying or intimidatory.
Disrepute
6.44 A number of times the complainants have referred to Councillor Brookes’
conduct bringing the Council into disrepute. It is my opinion that much of the
conduct referred to would be likely to diminish a reasonable member of the
public’s opinion and belief that the Council can fulfil its role effectively.
However, I note that the Council’s code of conduct has no reference to
disrepute. Therefore I am unable to fully consider this aspect of the
allegations against the code of conduct.
Using position for personal advantage
6.45 The Council’s code states:-
“4.1 A member of the Council has the following obligations. He or she
shall:-
4.1.3 Not seek to improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on
any person.”
6.46 It is evident that Mr Harrison alleged Councillor Brookes was using his
position improperly to disadvantage Mr Harrison as a candidate in the byelection.
Whilst the post on the blog were clearly the work of a councillor by
virtue of the blog being under the name of Councillor Brookes it was not by
virtue of his position as a Councillor that he was able to operate the blog. Had
the blog been a formal Council forum the conclusion would be different. I am
minded that any individual could operate a blog and could have made similar
comments. Whilst I have concluded the posts were inappropriate I do not
consider Councillor Brookes improperly used his position as a member to
confer a disadvantage on Mr Harrison.
Other matters considered
6.47 For the avoidance of doubt I have considered all other aspects of the
complaints made. I am mindful that the pattern of behaviour of Councillor
Brookes is totally unacceptable from an elected representative. I am also
mindful of the brevity of the Council’s code of conduct which has led me to
conclude that in some respects Councillor Brookes did not breach the code.
However, the conduct can only be judged against the code not what a
reasonable person would consider appropriate.
6.48 In reaching my conclusions I have given careful consideration to the actions
of other Town Councillors. I am mindful that, at times, Councillor Brookes was
responding to what he considered to be inappropriate conduct towards him.
Whilst this is no excuse for Councillor Brookes’ behaviour it seems to indicate
an underlying problem that the Town Council should address.
6.49 I have noted that even some of the complainants have commented on the
potential for Councillor Brookes to be an effective Town Councillor if he could
accept differing views and channel his energy into positive contributions. This
is an area that Councillor Brookes and the Town Council should be
encouraged to address.
Conclusion on the code of conduct
6.50 I have concluded that Councillor Brookes’ actions were within the scope of
the Council’s code of conduct.
6.51 I have concluded that on two occasions Councillor Brookes published
confidential information on a public website and therefore breached the Code
of Conduct.
6.52 I have concluded that in emails and in posts on the internet Councillor
Brookes published comments about Councillor Lowe that were untrue and
disrespectful and therefore breached the Code of Conduct.
6.53 I have concluded that in emails and in posts on the internet Councillor
Brookes published comments about Councillor Dewis that were untrue and
disrespectful and therefore breached the Code of Conduct.
6.54 I have concluded that in posts on the internet Councillor Brookes published
comments about a person who complained about Councillor Brookes that
were untrue and disrespectful and therefore breached the Code of Conduct
6.55 I have concluded that in posts on the internet Councillor Brookes published
comments about Mr Harrison that were untrue and disrespectful and therefore
breached of the Code of Conduct.
6.56 I have concluded that in posts on the internet Councillor Brookes published
material that was intended to intimidate Mr Beech and therefore breached the
code of conduct.
6.57 Having considered the facts as set out in section 4 of this report and the
considerations set out in the section 5 I have concluded that Councillor
Brookes’ conduct has fallen short of that expected.
6.58 I therefore consider that Councillor Brookes failed to comply with paragraphs
4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.5 of the Council’s code of conduct.
6.59 I therefore consider that Councillor Brookes has failed to comply with the
Council’s code of conduct in respect of those parts of the complaint set out in
this report.
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
V4
Page 43 of 43
7. Finding
7.1 My finding is that Councillor Brookes has failed to follow the Council’s Code of
Conduct.
DECISION NOTICE
RELATING TO ALLEGATIONS OF BREACHES OF THE CODE
OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS OF OAKHAM TOWN COUNCIL
BY COUNCILLOR MARTIN BROOKES
9 June 2016
Debbie Mogg
Monitoring Officer for Rutland County Council
Page 1 of 7
DECISION STATEMENT
For the reasons set out within this report, a breach of the Code of Conduct for Oakham
Town Council has been found. The report of the independent investigation found that:
• Councillor Brookes’ actions were within the scope of the Council’s code of conduct;
• that on two occasions Councillor Brookes published confidential information on
a public blog and therefore breached the Code of Conduct;
• that in emails and in posts on the internet Councillor Brookes published
comments about Councillor Lowe that were untrue and disrespectful and therefore
breached the Code of Conduct;
• that in emails and in posts on the internet Councillor Brookes published
comments about the then Councillor Dewis that were untrue and disrespectful and
therefore breached the Code of Conduct;
• that in posts on the internet Councillor Brookes published comments about a member
of the public that were derogatory and disrespectful and therefore breached the Code of
Conduct;
• that in posts on the internet Councillor Brookes published comments about Mr Beech
that were intimidatory and therefore breached the Code of Conduct;
• that in posts on the internet Councillor Brookes published comments about Mr
Harrison that were untrue and disrespectful and therefore breached of the Code of
Conduct.
In assessing this complaint I have considered the findings of fact from the investigation as
set out in section 3 of this report and the considerations set out in section 4. I have
concluded that Councillor Brookes’ conduct has fallen short of that expected. I therefore
consider that Councillor Brookes failed to comply with the following paragraphs of
Oakham Town Council’s Code of Conduct:
• Paragraph 4.1.1 - A Member of the Council shall behave in such a way that a
reasonable person would regard as respectful
• Paragraph 4.1.2 A Member shall not act in a way which a reasonable person would
regards as bullying or intimidatory
• Paragraph 4.1.5 A Member shall not disclose information which is confidential or where
disclosure is prohibited
As such, I have recommended sanctions to the Town Council and these are set out in
section 6 of this statement. Councillor Brookes has the potential to make a positive
contribution to the Town Council as can be seen from the comments as section 5.
To reach its potential of becoming a high performing organisation, there is a general need
for improvement in conduct across the Town Council. It is for this reason that I have
made a further recommendation that the Town Council takes part in a conciliation process
involving Councillor Brookes.
Page 2 of 7
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This decision notice relates to complaints submitted against Oakham Town
Councillor Martin Brookes between 27 July 2015 and 2 November 2015.
1.2 This complaint has been dealt with under Rutland County Council’s Arrangements
for Dealing with Conduct Allegations. The initial assessment of the complaints
concluded that a full investigation was required.
1.3 As such, David Hayward of Wilkin Chapman LLP Solicitors was appointed as an
external independent investigator on 6 October 2015.
1.4 In accordance with section 10 of these arrangements and with the agreement of
the Independent Persons appointed to Rutland County Council’s Conduct
Committee I have departed from the arrangements in that I have determined that
the investigators report will be accepted without referral to the Conduct
Committee. The reasons for doing so are:
(i) Councillor Brookes was given the opportunity to make representations to the
Investigating Officer both at the commencement of the investigation and after the
Investigating Officer had completed interviewing the complainants and
witnesses. He declined to co-operate with the investigation.
(ii) The evidence on which the findings in the report are based is substantiated by
documents posted on Councillor Brookes social media sites; therefore it is not a
question of testing the evidence for accuracy.
(iii) If a hearing were to take place it would be necessary to circulate the report as a
confidential document to Members of the Hearing Panel, the complainants and
Councillor Brookes. On the basis of some of the issues raised in the complaints
and the findings set out in the report it is considered highly likely that the report
would be published on social media. I consider this would be detrimental to the
effective and fair consideration of the matter at any subsequent hearing.
1.5 For the same reasons, I also determined that the investigator should proceed
straight to a final report without issuing a draft version for comment by Councillor
Brookes and the complainants. In taking this decision, I have considered carefully
the possible disadvantage to all parties in not being able to comment on a draft, as
against the risk of a premature publication of that draft with a consequent
detriment to the effective and fair consideration of the issues.
1.6 Councillor Brookes was offered the opportunity for a detailed discussion on the
findings of the investigation and draft decision but he declined.
1.7 Accordingly, based on the submission to the Council of the investigation report by
the external independent investigator I have determined the findings as to
breaches and the recommended sanctions in respect of these findings.
1.8 The full report will be published on Rutland County Council’s website alongside
this decision notice.
Page 3 of 7
2 THE COMPLAINTS
2.1 16 complaints were assessed as requiring detailed investigation. The complaints
were received from 10 individuals, 8 of whom were Members of Oakham Town
Council. Three Members have since resigned from the Council and two made the
decision to withdraw from the investigation (including one member who resigned).
2.2 The complaints can be categorised into three specific areas:
(iv)Publication of confidential information
(v) Showing disrespect towards others in particular in emails and in posts on a
blog; and
(vi)Behaving in a bullying and intimidatory manner, in particular in emails and in
posts on a blog
2.3 Oakham Town Council adopted a Code of Conduct on 8 August 2012 and
amended on 12 March 2014 in which the following paragraphs are included:
3. When Does The Code Apply?
3.1 The Code applies whenever a person is acting in his/her official capacity as a
member of the Council or a co-opted member in the conduct of the business
or acting as a representative of the Council. The Code does not apply when
a person claims to act or gives the impression of acting as a representative
of the Council.
4. Member Obligations
4.1 A member of the Council has the following obligations. He or she shall –
4.1.1 Behave in such a way that a reasonable person would regard as respectful.
4.1.2 Not act in a way which a reasonable person would regard as bullying or
intimidatory.
4.1.3 Not seek to improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person.
4.1.4 Use the resources of the Council in accordance with its requirements.
4.1.5 Not disclose information which is confidential or where disclosure is prohibited
3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF FACT
3.1 On three occasions Councillor Brookes has posted information provided in
confidence on the internet.
3.2 During the time Councillor Brookes has been a Town Councillor he has operated a
blog under the identity Councillor Martin Brookes. The blog carries information
about a number of areas of interest locally including jobs, local events, the local
Member of Parliament and the Town Council. Each of these subjects, and others,
are under separate headings on the blog. Posts are made to the blog on an almost
Page 4 of 7
daily basis.
3.3 Under the Oakham Town Council heading there have been numerous posts of
email exchanges between Councillor Brookes, the Town Council, other Town
Councillors and other individuals. Details have also been posted of activities of the
Town Council; these have included video recordings of meetings.
3.4 In respect of the complaints, numerous emails and posts on Councillor Brookes’
blog were found between 25 June and 26 October 2015. These are detailed in
section 5.6 of the investigation report.
3.5 A review of Councillor Brookes’ blog has revealed a significant number of posts
that have not been referred to in the complaints under investigation. These include
comments and allegations about Oakham Town Councillors that show a pattern of
behaviour by Councillor Brookes consistent with those matters referred to in the
complaints.
4 REASONING AS TO WHETHER THERE HAVE BEEN BREACHES
4.1 Official capacity - I have considered the issues around the question of official
capacity, in particular the activity by Councillor Brookes on his blog as this is the
main cause of the complaints.
4.2 Taking all of the relevant facts into consideration I conclude that Councillor
Brookes was acting in an official capacity whilst posting confidential information.
This is because he was only in receipt of such information in his capacity as a
member of the town council.
4.3 Similarly, I believe he was acting in an official capacity when posting comments
about other individuals on his blog. This is because the blog is attributed to
Councillor Martin Brookes, and in every case the content of the posts relate to the
business of the Town Council or other Town Councillors, under the heading of
Oakham Town Council.
4.4 Confidential Information – The investigation dealt with 4 instances where it was
alleged that Councillor Brookes disclosed confidential information. In all instances
the evidence demonstrates that the information was disclosed, and in two
instances it is evident that Councillor Brookes deliberately ignored the request for
confidentiality and breached the code of conduct.
4.5 Respect – in assessing whether Councillor Brookes failed to treat others with
respect, numerous instances were considered by the investigator. Of these
instances, there is evidence that Councillor Brookes failed to treat Cllr Lowe,
(former) Cllr Dewis, Mr Harrison and a member of the public with respect.
Councillor Brookes breached the code of conduct by making false allegations
about individuals on his blog and in emails. The effect of these allegations could
adversely affect the reputation of the individuals involved.
4.6 Bullying or Intimidatory Behaviour – I have considered the findings of the
investigation and differentiated the behaviour towards Mr Beech from the
behaviour towards other councillors. In respect of the latter, there has been no
breach of the code of conduct. However, I support the findings of the investigation
Page 5 of 7
in respect of the material published about Mr Beech. The level of acceptable
conduct towards a member of the public is generally accepted as being of a higher
standard than is acceptable towards a fellow councillor and it is evident that the
blog entries complained about (dated 25 June and 25 July 2015) contained
unnecessary and unacceptable content and was intended to intimidate Mr Beech.
In respect of this instance Mr Brookes has breached that part of the code which
requires members to not act in a way which would be regarded as bullying or
intimidatory.
4.7 Disrepute – this was reviewed by the investigator and their opinion was that much
of the conduct referred to would be likely to diminish a reasonable member of the
public’s opinion and belief that the Council can fulfil its role effectively. However,
the Town Council’s code of conduct has no reference to disrepute therefore this
cannot be considered as part of my decision.
4.8 Using position for personal advantage – no breach is found
5 CONCLUSION
5.1 In conclusion, it is evident from the investigation report that Councillor Brookes has
breached paragraphs 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.5 of the Council’s code of conduct and
that his behaviour has fallen short of that expected of an elected member. There
is an immediate need for improvement.
5.2 The investigation identified that at times Councillor Brookes was responding to
what he considered to be inappropriate conduct towards him. This does not
excuse Councillor Brookes’ behaviour, but does indicate a wider problem that
should be addressed by the Town Council. My own knowledge of the Town
Council supports this view and I have observed meetings footage and emails
between members of the council which demonstrate that there is fundamental
need for an improvement in the levels of conduct displayed.
5.3 The investigation also highlighted the view shared by some of the complainants,
which was that Councillor Brookes has the potential to be an effective Town
Councillor if he could channel his energy into more positive contributions and
accept differing views. This is an opinion that I share, having discussed numerous
issues relating to the Town Council with Councillor Brookes over the past 12
months.
6 RECOMMENDATIONS IN RESPECT OF SANCTIONS
6.1 I consider the following actions to be appropriate to address the breaches that
have been found and am recommending these sanctions to the Town Council:
1. A formal letter should be issued to Councillor Brookes;
2. Councillor Brookes should be formally censured;
3. A press release should be issued by the County Council to coincide with the
publication of this decision notice;
4. Oakham Town Council should not appoint Councillor Brookes to any
Committees or working groups until his conduct improves;
5. Oakham Town Council should arrange for Councillor Brookes to undergo
training to enable him to channel his contribution to the Town Council in a
Page 6 of 7
more productive manner. Such training should include the appropriate use of
social media and effective debating skills.
7 FURTHER RECOMMENDATION IN RESPECT OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
7.1 It is evident from the investigation report and supporting evidence that there is
much scope for improvement on all sides of the Town Council.
7.2 All Councillors have an individual and collective responsibility to act in the best
interests of the town and ensure that the council is effectively managed.
7.3 The Town Council has the potential to be a high performing organisation if it
overcome the difficulties and conflict it is currently experiencing. Rutland County
Council has a strong wish to see this happen and for the Town Council to operate
as an effective partner in the positive development of Oakham. As such I am
recommending to the Town Council that it takes part in a conciliation process
involving Councillor Brookes.
A Large Print or Braille Version of this Report is available
upon request – Contact 01572 722577.
Page 7 of 7
