Cllr Martin Brookes, IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL, Local Government Standards in England, DECISION OF THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

The tribunal findings

Rutland County Council Standard passed many more complaint than those shown

a lot of them were removed. Its clear to me they were happy to send anything

to the Ethical Standards officer. It is a pity they don't take the same robust

approach when I complain about the Conservative Leaders Roger Begy and

Deputy Leader Terry kings Lack of respect towards me.

The tribunal chucked out another 3 at the start and a few more as the hearing.

I have been found guilty of breaches of some codes of conduct. 

I am pleased they have said I have not bullied the Clerk.

I have previously said sorry to the Clerk he later chucked that back at me. 

I have apologised to Cllr Dewis for the publication of the email sent to me by

Gordon Sheasby and removed shortly after.

I will not be apologising to any other people, I have learnt if you are a town

councillor you have to respect even the most foul people.

I have responded as required to the Tribunal and will accept whatever action

they may or not take.

The Ethical Standards officer has replied and has made no recommendations and

and refers to the experience of the tribunal.

I have added some comments in red further now this page against the findings.

All the complaints relate to 2010

IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL CASE NO: LGS/2011/0537

GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER

(Local Government Standards in England)

ON APPLICATION FROM:

Ethical Standards Officer (ESO) of Standards for England

Application reference No: SBE-10830, 10831, 10862, 10863, 10864, 10897, 10898, 10899 and 10900 and SFE-000009, 000014, 000023, 000026 and 000027

Dated: 21 December 2010

APPLICANT: Jennifer Rogers, ESO, Standards for England

RESPONDENT: Councillor Martin Brookes

of Oakham Town Council

DATE OF HEARING: 15 August & 30 September 2011

Venue: Leicester Crown Court

Date of Decision: 24 October 2011

BEFORE:

Judge: David Laverick

Member: David Ritchie

Member: Peter Norris

Attendances:

For the Applicant (ESO): Miss Janet Kentridge of Counsel

For the Respondent: Represented himself

Subject matter: Reference about possible failure to follow the Code of Conduct

Cases Cited:

Sanders v Kingston [2005] EWHC 1145

Livingstone v Adjudication Panel for England [2006] EWHC 2533

Mullaney v The Adjudication Panel for England [2009] EWHC 72 (Admin)

MC v Standards Committee of the London Borough of Richmond [2011] UKHT 232 (AAC)

IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL CASE NO: LGS/2010/0537

GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER

(Local Government Standards in England)

DECISION OF THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

The Tribunal determined that on some occasions the Respondent acted in breach of the Code of Conduct.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The hearing resumed on 30 September 2011.
2. The Respondent had indicated that he had a commitment to attend a meeting to discuss Lottery funding for a Town Council project and had been warned that if he chose to absent himself from the hearing on that account then the Tribunal would proceed in his absence.
3. Also absent was Mr Norris, a member of the Tribunal who had been taken ill. The Tribunal indicated it had been re-constituted as a two-man Tribunal and would determine the issues on that basis.
4. The Tribunal reminded itself that it had already received submissions from the parties in relations to allegations 1-7 and 11. The Tribunal proceeded to hear further submissions from Miss Kentridge on the remaining allegations, reminding itself by reference to the papers of what the Respondent had said about each of those allegations.
5. The Tribunal then adjourned to reach its decision in relation to each of the allegations as to whether there had been a breach of the Code of Conduct.
6. Miss Kentridge submitted that a wide interpretation should be given as to when a councillor was acting in his official capacity, arguing that a more restrictive interpretation would not be consistent with the principles specified by the Secretary of State in accordance with Section 49(1) of the Local Government Act 2000, in The Relevant Authorities (General Principles) Order 2001 (SI1401).
7. Paragraph 2 of the Schedule to that Order provides:

“Members should not place themselves in situations where their honesty and integrity may be questioned, should not behave improperly and on all occasions should avoid the appearance of such behaviour”.

8. Paragraph 3(3) of the General Principles Order provides:

“Only paragraphs (2) and 9 of the Schedule to this Order shall have effect in relation to the activities of a member that are undertaken other than in an official capacity”.

Paragraph 9 of the Schedule to the Principles Order provides:

“Members should uphold the law and on all occasions act in accordance with the trust that the public is entitled to place in them”.

9. In relation to several of the allegations against the Respondent, Miss Kentridge submits that even if true (and the Tribunal understood that those on the receiving end of the Respondent’s remarks say they were not true) the remarks and the publication of them were defamatory. In making the reference to the Tribunal the ESO had not sought to determine whether there was truth in the Respondent’s defamatory remarks and on her behalf Miss Kentridge submits that it was not necessary to do so because the publication of defamatory material was itself improper conduct on behalf of the Respondent.
10. The Tribunal had at the outset expressed concern that there was a possible conflict between the application of the Code of Conduct and the Respondent’s right of freedom of expression set out in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Miss Kentridge accepts that the Article is engaged but submits that it is the whole article which is engaged, including paragraph 2 which states:

“The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law, and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary”.

11. Miss Kentridge drew attention to Sanders v Kingston [2005]EWHC 1145 (Admin). Wilkie J reached the conclusion that the Code met the requirements of Article 10(2) as being prescribed by law and for a legitimate purpose although he also accepted that there might be cases where the enforcement of the Code against a councillor who expressed political views in unnecessarily offensive terms could give rise to an infringement of Article 10 rights.
12. Miss Kentridge submits that when the Code is properly interpreted and applied its enforcement can never give rise to an infringement of Article 10 rights. She sees a distinction between what an ordinary citizen (who may be free to express views as rudely as he or she chooses) can do and what she describes as “an elected official acting under the title of his office.”
13. The Tribunal is very doubtful of that submission, particularly when account is taken of the higher level of protection which Wilkie J noted applies to the expression of political views. Miss Kentridge herself helpfully drew attention to dicta in the Livingstone case where Collins J stated:

“There can be no doubt that restraints imposed by a code of conduct designed to uphold proper standards of public life are in principle likely to be within Article 10(2). But it is important that the restraints should not extend beyond what is necessary to maintain those standards”.

14. In Mullaney v The Adjudication Panel for England [2009] EWHC 72 (Admin), Charles J approved the dicta in Wilkie and Livingstone that in principle the Code satisfies Article 10(2) but added that the restraints imposed by the Code should not extend beyond what is necessary to maintain proper standards in public life and again commented that political expression attracts a higher level of protection.
15. Bearing in mind that English Law does provide remedies where people claim to have been defamed, and may also provide injunctions to prevent the publication of defamatory material, the Tribunal is doubtful whether it is ­necessary for the Code to be applied for that particular purpose.
16. The Tribunal notes that as shown in some of the cited cases, remarks emanating from politicians should not necessarily be regarded as the expression of political views – they may sometimes be vulgar abuse.
17. Miss Kentridge draws attention to paragraph 1 of the Code of Conduct which enjoins that the Code should be read together with the general principles prescribed by the Secretary of the State.
18. The Tribunal has reminded itself that its task is to determine whether there has been a breach of the relevant Code of Conduct. The Tribunal can envisage circumstances whereby it finds that a councillor who in the words of the General Principles Order has behaved improperly is found not to be in breach of the Code of Conduct because his behaviour, however reprehensible, is not undertaken in his official capacity, as defined in the Code of Conduct.
19. The distinction between what a councillor did in his official capacity and the councillor’s other activities was recognised by the then Secretary of State in issuing the General Principles Order. The Tribunal needs to determine on which side of the line each of the Respondent’s activities fell. Only if in each case the Respondent was acting in his official capacity can the Tribunal go on to consider the propriety of his actions.
20. Miss Kentridge has helpfully drawn attention to Mullaney where Charles J considered a provision in an earlier Code that it applied where a “Councillor conducts the business of the office to which he is elected.” He said those were:

“ordinary descriptive English words. Their application is inevitably fact- sensitive and so whether or not a person is so acting calls for informed judgment by reference to the facts of a given case”.

21. The Tribunal accepts Miss Kentridge’s submission, based on the judgment in Mullaney that important factors would be the reasons why, the circumstances in which and the reasons for which the communication was made.
22. Charles J in Mullaney quoted dicta in Livingstone v Adjudication Panel for England [2006] EWHC 2533 where Collins J said that:

“official capacity will include anything done in dealing with staff, when representing the Council, in dealing with constituency problems and so on”

23. In MC v Standards Committee of the London Borough of Richmond [2011] UKHT 232 (AAC) Judge Ward commented that the dicta in Livingstone were not binding authority to the effect that any time a member deals with staff he is acting in his official capacity. Judge Ward also stated that the fact that the example from Livingstone was cited and applied in Mullaney did not amount to approving the dictum in Livingstone.
24. The Tribunal regards itself as bound by the view of Judge Ward that not all dealings between a councillor and staff result in a finding that the councillor is acting in his official capacity. The Tribunal need not concern itself with Miss Kentridge’s own view that the councillor in the MC case was so acting.
25. Miss Kentridge submits that any suggestion (that she implies is made by Judge Ward) that misuse of a member’s position as a member is no longer covered by the Code is clearly mistaken. The Tribunal sees her submission as being based on a mistaken approach of equating a Member’s office as a councillor with being a representative of the Council. The Tribunal rejected that view in its Notice of Adjournment reached after the hearing on 15 August 2011. None of the particular actions of the Respondent under consideration by the Tribunal involve his acting or claiming to act as a representative of the Council.
26. Miss Kentridge submitted, as recorded in the Notice of Adjournment that although signing himself as “Councillor” is not itself sufficient to establish that the Respondent’s action is undertaken in an official capacity it is highly indicative of this, although if the particular entry is entirely extraneous to Council business this might offset that initial assumption.
27. The Tribunal takes a more cautious approach. If the particular entry is entirely extraneous to the Council’s business it is hard to see how the writer can be said to be acting in his official capacity. But the Tribunal does not go so far as to say that even where he is writing about the Council he is necessarily acting in his official capacity in so doing. The particular circumstances need to be carefully examined.
28. Having dealt with those general submissions from Miss Kentridge the Tribunal has looked at each of the allegations (other than 1 to 3) which have already been dismissed and has reached the following conclusions both about whether the actions were those taken in an official capacity and whether they involved a breach of the Code of Conduct. 
    
    
    
    
     
29. Allegation 4 was about emails which the Respondent sent to another councillor on 10 March 2010. Although he used the title of councillor in “signing” these emails, and copied them to other members of the Council, they were not in fact about Council business – they were about what the Respondent saw as personal attacks upon him in a blog for which he believed, rightly or wrongly, the recipient councillor to be responsible. In the Tribunal’s view, these were not emails sent in the Respondent’s official capacity.
    
    
    
    
    
    
30. Allegation 5 was a blog written by the Respondent containing his account of what had happened at a meeting of the Council and including a statement that the Respondent would call the Police to ask them to remove a particular member of the public should that person attend a future meeting. Whether or not made in an official capacity, the Tribunal simply does not share the ESO’s view that such a comment, constituted a lack of respect toward the person concerned and thus a breach of the Code. It is hard to see it as anything other than an empty threat. The complaint about this matter should not, in the Tribunal’s view have been accepted for investigation. 
    
    
    To be fair to the ESO she had a difficult job, because Oakham Town Councillors ex Councillors so many complaints and Rutland County Council were happy to entertain them they did not bother to check if they were valid. Complaint from a Melton Borough Council member of staff were sent in before I had signed my acceptance papers.
     
31. Allegation 6 relates to an email sent by the Respondent to various people about another councillor, Councillor D in sending this email, the Respondent did not style himself Councillor. The Tribunal cannot see how that email can be said to have been sent in his official capacity. It was certainly about the fitness of Councillor D to be a councillor but that does not mean that it was written in an official capacity. Nor is the Tribunal persuaded that a different view should be reached when account is taken of the fact that the Respondent had previously made a complaint to a Standards Committee about Councillor D’s alleged homophobic behaviour. 
    
    
     
32. Allegation 7 relates to an entry on a blog dated 14 May 2010 which began by setting out a letter from the Assistant Clerk to the Council recording that a former member of the Town Council had apologised for his behaviour at the recent annual meeting of the Council. The letter began “Dear Members” and had clearly been written to the Respondent and others in their capacity as councillors. The Respondent indicted in his blog that he would not accept the apology and accused the former councillor of partaking in “online cowardly bullying.”
33. On 13 May, the day after the Town Council’s Annual Meeting, the Respondent had written his own detailed account of the meeting. The Tribunal sees that as being action undertaken in his official capacity – he was using his blog to communicate, as a councillor, with the electorate in the Parish. The Blog of 14 May can be seen as an extension of that process and does of course begin with the publication of a letter he had received in his official capacity. The Tribunal takes the view that these actions of the Respondent do lie within the scope of the Code of Conduct. 
      
34. The Respondent has not resiled from his belief that the particular former member was responsible for what he regards as bullying. He told the Tribunal that his remark had been made in anger. Whether the former councillor has indeed bullied the Respondent is not for the Tribunal to determine. The ESO has accepted that the Respondent had been put under a lot of pressure by comments about him.
35. Bearing in mind that the 14 May entry followed an apology from the former councillor, the Tribunal shares the ESO’s view that the Respondent’s comments were inflammatory and could find no justification for them. The Tribunal considers that there was a lack of respect shown toward the former councillor and that thus the Respondent was in breach of the Code of Conduct.
36. That same former councillor was also concerned with Allegation 9 where along with another former councillor he was accused by the Respondent of being a bully and a thug. This was in the context of a blog entry in which the Respondent published a letter by which the Town Clerk had set out a grievance against his employer, the Town Council, the grievance being based on the Respondent’s conduct toward him. On his blog publication the Respondent interspersed extracts from the grievance with comments of his own including the ‘bully’ and ‘thug’ reference. The Respondent was using his blog to explain his conduct as a councillor and the Tribunal regards such actions as being within the scope of the Code of Conduct. The particular reference appears as a gratuitous side-track to the Respondent’s refutation of the grievance and can by no means be seen as an expression of a political view. It was simply vulgar abuse, again evidencing a lack of respect toward the recipients of that abuse. 
     
37. Allegation 8 refers to criticisms made by the Respondent of the Town Clerk whose competence the Respondent had called into question and of whom the Respondent had made thinly veiled allegations of financial impropriety.
38. It was not for the Tribunal to determine the validity or otherwise of the Respondent’s criticisms but the Tribunal observe that the facts which seem to lie behind allegations that the Council had incurred unnecessary expenditure and had received a lesser number of tenders than expected did not inexorably lead to the conclusion, as asserted by the Respondent, that the Town Clerk was thereby at fault.
39. Although the Respondent could have made these allegations even if he had not been a councillor, the Tribunal had no doubt that he did see himself as acting in an official capacity in making them when writing a letter to the Audit Commission and then publishing that letter on 20 April 2010 as part of his Blog. The letter is stated to be from “Councillor Martin Brookes” and begins by referring to his having been elected to the Council to serve the people of Oakham. The letter is signed as “Cllr Martin Brookes” and it is difficult to read the whole content as being written in anything other than the Respondent’s official capacity.
40. The ESO had noted that the issue of whether public money was being properly spent was a matter of genuine public interest and submits that the Respondent’s comments on the matter “attracted the higher level of protection afforded by the Human Rights legislation.” She qualifies that by excluding from such protection occasions where the Respondent expressed his criticism in a manner which was rude and offensive. Miss Kentridge, in her submissions, sought to draw a distinction between comments made in what she described as an appropriate forum, and those made in an inappropriate forum such as a public blog.
41. The Tribunal does not share Miss Kentridge’s view – the Right to Freedom of Expression is, in the Tribunal’s view applicable in either forum. But the Tribunal is mindful that Article 10 of the Code of Conduct does allow for restrictions on the right to freedom of expression which are imposed to protect the rights and reputations of others and draws a distinction between political comments on matters of public interest (which should not be subject to interference of expression from the Code of Conduct) and personal attacks upon an officer of the Council.
42. The Tribunal is particularly concerned that while the Town Clerk was absent on sick leave, the Respondent’s blog contained a series of comments about the way the Town Clerk acted and the terms of his engagement by the Council. The entries include specific reference to the failed relationship between the Town Clerk and the Respondent as a councillor, confirming the view that in making these comments the councillor was acting, albeit improperly, in his role as a councillor.
43. By acting in that way, the Respondent did fail to treat the Town Clerk with respect. It is difficult to see how this kind of public spat can do other than bring the Town Council, and the Respondent’s own office as councillor, into disrepute.
44. The Code of Conduct provides that a member must not bully anyone. The Tribunal has noted the description of bullying set out in paragraph 7.49 of the ESO’s report of her investigation. The Tribunal understands that this paragraph or something similar appears in guidance issued by Standards for England. However, bully is defined in the Shorter Oxford dictionary as “to act the bully towards; to intimidate, overawe.” That is a much narrower definition than the guidance used by the ESO. The Tribunal takes the view that if the Secretary of State wishes the Code of Conduct to apply to conduct which falls outside the dictionary definition then he needs to draft the Code in a way which achieves that aim. As presently drafted, the Code does not. There is no evidence that the Town Clerk was overawed or that he was intimidated. Undoubtedly he was criticised and in a more public way than was appropriate. It may well be the case that the criticism was itself unfair and a reflection of the Respondent’s difficulty in taking a more balanced view. However, the Tribunal is also mindful that the Town Clerk was occupying the most senior post in the Council and, notwithstanding the ESO’s observations on this matter at paragraph 7.52 of her report, in the Tribunal’s view the threshold for a bullying relationship to be proven must be a high one. The Tribunal’s conclusion is that the Respondent’s conduct, though disrespectful, fell short of bullying. 
    
    
    I am pleased the tribunal has decided I am not a bully, I am not sure how this will effect the continued complaints from Cllr Alf Dewis who constantly says I am bullying the Clerk.
    I am told Rutland County Council have received a further seven complaints this month.
    
    
    A Councillor told me today the Town Council is failing because a small group of Councillors spend all their time trying to exclude me.
    
    
    I can only assume this is because they have something to hide and to me their behaviour is bullying.
      
45. Allegation 10 also refers to the Respondent’s publication of the Town Clerk’s employment grievance and the Respondent’s commentary upon that letter. The Tribunal has already set out its decision that this improper publication did come within the scope of the Code of Conduct.
46. The Respondent made a reference to it being surprising that a councillor was homophobic considering that the councillor’s own daughter was lesbian. The Respondent was later told that words he used to describe lesbian activity were considered offensive by lesbians and then replaced them on his Blog that the daughter “bats first on the LGBT wicket.”
47. The Respondent had no first hand knowledge of the sexuality of the councillor’s daughter. He has said that he was passing on information he had been given from another source. He made no attempt to verify that information or whether, even if true, it was a matter the person concerned was prepared to have discussed publicly. The Respondent has indeed said he did not even know or care whether the councillor had a daughter.
48. The Tribunal has reminded itself that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life. The Tribunal has already found that in making this publication the Respondent was acting in his official capacity. The Tribunal further finds that in so doing the Respondent failed to respect the human rights of the councillor’s daughter and thus failed to treat her with respect in contravention of the Code of Conduct. There was also a lack of respect for the family life of the councillor concerned. 
    
    
    I have apologised to Councillor Dewis for publishing the email sent to me by Gordon Sheasby.
       
49. Allegation 11 relates to 8 May 2010 when the Respondent displayed an offensive poster, which he says had been sent to him, on the Town Council’s Notice Board. He did so at the same time as putting up other official notices. In the course of so doing he caused some damage to the notice board. On 25 May 2010 the Respondent was officially cautioned by the Police for displaying an obscene photograph and for criminal damage.
50. Before the Tribunal, the Respondent accepted that in putting the material onto the Notice Board he was acting in his official capacity. By putting such material onto the Council’s notice Board the Respondent did bring the Council into disrepute and also by using his office as a councillor for that purpose also brought his office as a councillor into disrepute.
      
    This was a act of frustration, as regular readers know I have received some very offensive things through the post and Leicestershire Constabulary until now have taken little or no action to find the person (s) responsible
    
    
51. Allegation 12 relates to a meeting of the Council’s Staffing Committee on 3 June. Although not a member of the Committee, the Respondent sought to attend the meeting. The Tribunal were told that the Council’s practice was to allow such attendance. As the particular meeting was going to discuss the grievance from the Town Clerk to which earlier reference has been made the Committee voted that not only should the press and public be excluded but also councillors who were not members of the Committee. The Respondent refused to leave, doing so only after Police attended. No further action was taken against him although according to the Respondent’s own Blog, he was warned that he would be arrested if he sought to return to the meeting. 
     
52. Although the Blog entry contains some personal criticisms of various councillors it can be seen as falling broadly within the boundaries of acceptable expression of views, particularly in the context of local politics.
53. But the Respondent’s actions in defying the Committee’s decision to exclude him (and for that matter any other person who was not a member of the Committee) was wrong. He was there in his official capacity. Defying the Committee in that way, and requiring the attendance of the Police to ensure his removal, brought the reputation of the Town Council into disrepute as well as that of his own office as a councillor. 
     
54. Allegation 13 relates to emails which the Respondent (who is a photographer) sent to various recipients including the local press about another local photographer.
55. The material before the Tribunal included criticisms which that photographer had made about the Respondent’s fitness to be a councillor.
56. Although the emails included the statement “from Councillor Martin Brookes” there was nothing in the content that referred to the actions or responsibilities of either the Council or his office as councillor. The Respondent had previously told the Tribunal that he sometimes used the title councillor to lend greater weight to his communications. Whilst that is not a use the Tribunal would condone, it does not have the effect of bringing the particular action within the scope of the Code of Conduct. In writing these emails the Respondent was not acting in his official capacity and that is the end of the matter so far as the Tribunal is concerned. 
    
    
    Remembering I must respect all Yes the very nice Photographer and charming ex Councillor Mr Harrison's Blog still has a post falsely suggesting I am a risk to children. For this he receives all my respect!
     
57. Allegation 14 relates to alleged disrespect shown to another member of the Town Council. The Respondent made a complaint to the Local Standards Committee about that councillor. That complaint was made over his signature as Councillor Martin Brookes and alleged that the other councillor had called him a paedophile. That complaint had been investigated by an ESO who found that there was not sufficient evidence that the other councillor had acted in the manner alleged. But the ESO also found that the Respondent had a genuine belief (based on what he said he had been told by another person) that she had made such a remark. The Tribunal doubts whether, despite his use of the councillor title, the Respondent was acting in his official capacity in making that complaint but in any event does not see any lack of respect in making an honestly held complaint even if such a complaint is not upheld.
58. On 23 June 2010 the Respondent wrote an email accusing the councillor of being evil. The Tribunal has seen nothing whatsoever to suggest that this email was sent in the Respondent’s official capacity as a councillor. That the subject matter related to another councillor is not of itself sufficient to bring the writing of that document within the scope of the Code of Conduct
59. The Tribunal takes a similar view of a further email sent, on 28 June 2010 by the Respondent to the various councillors and possibly others – the addresses on document before the Tribunal cannot easily be deciphered. The councillor did not use that title in sending the email although it does begin:

“It is Council business most of the nasty vile gossip comes from one old bag on the council.”

60. The Tribunal cannot make much sense of that sentence or its relevance to the rest of the letter which sets out his concern that the other councillor, and people who were not members of the Council, had labelled him as a paedophile. The Tribunal take the view that this email was not written in the Respondent’s official capacity and thus did not come within the Scope of the Code of Conduct.
    
    
    
    
61. The Tribunal has adjourned so that the Parties and particularly the Respondent may have an opportunity to make submissions about what action if any the Tribunal should take in the light of its findings set out above that in some instances the Respondent has failed to abide by the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Code of Conduct. Such submissions should be sent within 14 days of receipt of this document.

DAVID LAVERICK

Judge

24 October 2011 

It is disappointing that a small number of Oakham Town Councillor still feel they have to do all they can to remove me from the council. I wonder how much all these complaints are costing the tax payer. 

I was pleased to read the ESO had decided not to appoint a barrister to make their response and only used the services of a cheaper solicitor.

I have been asked by the Ethical Standards Officer to make comments in response to the direction in paragraph 61 of the decision made on the 24-10-11 rather than employ the services of our barrister to do so. I assume you are familiar with our address (recently changed and set out below) so that we can all regard the requirements of paragraph 11(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First Tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 as complied with.

In view of the considerable experience of the tribunal panel members dealing with this case it is not felt necessary to make any additional submissions about the appropriate sanction in this case. Paragraphs 8.1 – 8.4 of the Ethical Standards Officer’s report remain relevant to the breaches that have been found to have taken place. To up-date paragraph 8.4, Mr Brookes is a councillor again having been returned unopposed to the town council at the local elections in May 2011. He is not a county councillor.

Mark Jones

Principal Lawyer

Tel - 0161 212 7042

Fax - 0161 212 7001

Standards for England

11th Floor, Portland Tower, 53 Portland Street, Manchester M1 3LF

www.standardsforengland.gov.uk 

From: Finnigan, James [mailto:james.finnigan@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 26 October 2011 14:37
To: Mark Jones
Subject: LGS\2011\0537 - Brookes - Decision

Dear Mark

Please find attached the Panel’s decision on Brookes

Regards

James Finnigan

Caseworker

T: 0113 389 6013

F: 0113 389 6002

Local Government Standards in England

York House

31-36 York Place, Leeds, LS1 2ED

www.adjudicationpanel.tribunals.gov.uk

 

Oakham Town Councillor Martin Brookes Tribunal Update

It appears the tribunal location was not Peterborough

slightly confusing communications

led to this.

The Tribunal was reconvened at Leicester

Leicester Crown Court 90 Wellington Street Leicester

Leicestershire England LE1 6HG

I hope no one made the trip to Peterborough!

I did not attend today and made a request for information and received the following

Dear Martin, 

I can confirm that as far as I know you are still a councillor... but
 

I'm afraid we still haven't got to the end of the process yet!

I didn't attend the hearing (it was in Leicester, just so you know)
but I understand that the first tier tribunal members considered and
questioned the facts as set out in the ESO's report and then adjourned
to consider them privately. 

As far as I know they have not come to a
decision either on whether they consider you breached to Code or
whether any sanction is appropriate. 

I think they intend to write to you and us next week.
 
I hope that is of some use. If I learn more on monday I will of course
let you know.
 
Have a good (sunny) weekend.
 
Kind regards
 
########## Standards for England

Roger Begy OBE leader of Rutland County Council Would you Vote for a Conservative Bully like this? Standard for England Report

Roger Begy OBE leader of Rutland County Council Would you Vote for a Conservative Bully like this? Standards for England Report:

 

Case Summary - Rutland County Council

Case no.	SBE-06880-YMBGV SBE-07068-2XX5G
Member(s):	Councillor Roger Begy
Date received:	14 Aug 2009
Date completed:	12 Nov 2009

Allegation:

The member failed to treat others with respect.

Standards Board outcome:

The ethical standards officer found that the member failed to comply with the Code, but in the circumstances of the case, no further action needed to be taken.

Case Summary

The complainant alleged that Councillor Roger Begy failed to treat her with respect at two public events.
The complainant alleged Councillor Begy raised his hand toward her in a menacing manner at a public meeting held on 13 June 2009.  She also alleged that Councillor Begy called her a ‘prat’ while attending the opening ceremony of Oakham’s newly built public toilets on 22 June 2009.
On 13 June 2009 Councillor Begy waved his finger in front of the complainant’s face while being critical of her. However, the ethical standards officer did not consider that he did so in a menacing manner. The ethical standards officer did consider that during the conversation Councillor Begy mimicked the complainant’s voice and actions in a manner that was unnecessarily rude.
On 22 June 2009 Councillor Begy, on seeing the complainant appear wearing a large placard that was critical of Rutland County Council, said ‘Oh god, what a prat.’


The ethical standards officer considered that Councillor Begy’s conduct had fallen below that expected of an elected member and that he had failed to treat the complainant with respect
on both

13 June 2009 and 22 June 2009.

However, the ethical standards officer noted the context in which Councillor Begy’s conduct took place and accepted it had not been his intention to deliberately offend the complainant. The ethical standards officer considered it important that Councillor Begy has recognised that some of his behaviour was not appropriate and regretted any offence his actions may have caused. In these circumstances, the ethical standards officer considered that no further action need be taken.

Relevant paragraphs of the Code of Conduct

The allegations in the case relate to paragraph 3(1) of the Code of Conduct. Paragraph 3(1) states that a member must “treat others with respect”.

Standards For England Oakham Town Council and Rutland County Council

Dear Sir,

I am assuming you have note read the statements, I am not referring to the time before the interview.

I am referring to the unfinished questions and answers many typed with ...................

Only last night, I once again read some of the statements and found in Joyce lucas statement Alex Oram asked a question and what is typed makes no sense.

No disrespect to Alex Oram, but if he is an investigator, does he not provide a report of his findings? Point out the lies, to the principle officer.

Once again no offence to Alex but it appears he has only carried out the role of a statement taker.

The statements in the current form are not an acceptable transcript, I showed one to a local police office who said. Any judge would chuck them back at him and that's only if they got past his sergeant.

I was told Standards have a duty to deal with any breaches they come across in during the course of the investigation. So why have they not investigated Rutland County Standards to find out which members calling me a paedophile?

Why is Cllr Alf Dewis not being investigated for lying "when he says he and others witnessed me being aggressive to the clerk" when the clerk who also signed a statement says this is not true.  Councillors should not lie.

Why is Mr Mark Jones assuming things, has he not read the statements if he does maybe he could fill the gaps. it took me over 10 hours to read them, so I do understand if he has not read them.

Anyone reading them can see these people have all concluded to discredit me. They continue to bully me.

Not one of these people complaining are an ordinary members of the public, When I was a Councillor I showed total respect towards the ordinary public. These people show no respect towards the public, RCC Standards ignore my complaints. The Mayor  Sharon Spencer thinks its ok to laugh at the public, especially those who suffer anti social behaviour.

They blame me for the illness of the previous mayor who announced her cure of cancer within ten months. This woman was sacked by her employer, when he visited her during a previous time of sick leave, she told them she had cancer. Her boss cared for her and turned up and her home to deliver flowers and cards from work and found her drunk. A state I often found her when I used to clean for her home. I won't be blamed for her life's problems. Her mother and brother also died from drink and people were told it was cancer it is a disgrace for those who really suffer cancer. My partner died from cancer he was so ill he could hardly drink tea let alone wine or vodka.

Only the other week Mr Beech boasted on his facebook he was spending a week in Bournemouth with his wife fora piss up in the brewery and suggested he would be so pissed 24/7 on the Monday he would not feel his hospital treatment on the Monday. So please don't tell me I am meant to give these people respect.

Mr Harrison's friend Mr Burton is tweeting I am a mental, paedophile, and much more he thinks this whole case is "fucking hilarious"

I don't find it funny, I sum it up a bunch of drunken bullies who have made my life hell for 2 years since I complained about their drunk friend Mrs ##########. Death threats and intimidation in the street, vile comments sent from Rutland County Councils network. When will they stop.

Answer: when I stop blogging says Sergeant Dickinson!

They already assume the Judge is going to ban me from public office. its a shame I was not stronger and professional and the bullies would not have won!

It appears they have started to bully Cllr Lorna Grey a very respectable person. A local trader has told me she has told him, she has had enough and may step down in May. It is disgusting these people can get away with behaving like they do.


From

Martin Brookes

---

From: Mark.Jones@standardsforengland.gov.uk
To: James.Finnigan@tribunals.gsi.gov.uk
CC: Jennifer.Rogers@standardsforengland.gov.uk; Alex.Oram@standardsforengland.gov.uk; martinjbrookes@hotmail.com
Subject: Brookes LGS/2010/0537
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:37:32 +0000

As instructed by the Principal Judge in his directions of the 6^th January 2011 below are the comments of the ethical standards officer (ESO) on the representations received by Mr Brookes through your good selves since that date:

Mr Brookes refers to incomplete “statements” which he did not sign and that fact that this was ignored by our organisation. I believe he is referring to the transcripts of his two interviews with our investigator, Mr Alex Oram. With any recorded interview there is a period before the recording starts when pleasantries are exchanged and the scene is set by the investigator. Similarly after the recording of an interview finishes the parties may chat before taking leave of each other. It is difficult to envisage a recorded interview where this sort of beginning and ending does not take place. In the case of the first interview the investigator tells me that there was a discussion with Mr Brookes that lasted approximately 25 minutes before an interview took place.

An initial meeting had been set up by the investigator to take Mr Brookes through the investigation process and get his initial reaction to the allegations that had been made against him. The day before that meeting was due to take place Mr Brookes indicated that he did not want to be seen and did not want to give any information about the allegations to the investigator at any point during the investigation. The investigator persuaded Mr Brookes to meet so that he could at least explain the investigation process to him. When they met Mr Brookes started giving responses to the allegations that he was being made aware of. The investigator asked him if he wished to interviewed after all and Mr Brookes indicated that he wished to be interviewed there and then. The investigator agreed to do this. None of this was captured on any recording. It is assumed that this is what Mr Brookes is referring to when he says that “the typed statements are not a complete record of the recorded interview and there are to[sic] many parts missing.”

From information we have recently received we believe it is possible that Mr Brookes thinks the hearing of his case will be in Leeds rather than considerably nearer to his home than that. No doubt you can confirm for both parties the likely location of the hearing.

The ESO has no comments on the rest of the email sent on the 9^th January 2011 by Mr Brookes.

The ESO is happy to arrange for officers from Standards for England to attend any hearing if the tribunal would find it helpful.

As you will see this email has been copied to Mr Brookes as directed in paragraph 8 of the directions of the Principal Judge.

 

Mark Jones

Principal Lawyer

Standards for England

40 Lever Street

Manchester M1 1BB

Tel. 0161 817 5397

----------------------------------------------------------------
This communication is only for the use of the addressee.  It may contain information which is legally privileged, confidential
and exempt from disclosure.  If you are not the intended recipient you must not read, copy, distribute or disseminate this communication or any attachments to anyone other than the addressee or use the information it contains.  If you receive this communication in error, please telephone us on 0161 817 5300 at once.  No responsibility is accepted by Standards for England for personal e-mails, or e-mails unconnected with Standards for England's business.
This email and all attachments have been checked for computer viruses.

Standard For England Oakham Town Council Rutland County Council

Dear Oakham Town Council,

I would like to know why it is acceptable for the chairman of Oakham Town Council finds it funny when a resident complains about anti social behaviour from one of the councils facilities? finishing with the suggestion they should not live near a park.

Why did the council refuse to give me the name and address of the person who wrote the letter, I can not see any reason why this request was ignored as I was her ward councillor at the time?

Why has  Oakham Town council refused to provide me with information requested in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act.

I also made a simmillar request of Leicester City Council. The have failed to comply and provide correspondence including my name between there office and Oakham Town Council. Good to see how Clerks stick together.

If Oakham town council has nothing to hide then you would comply with my request.

I also would like to know why Mr David Burton knows so much about my standards case? He is a friend of ex Councillors and current Councillors.

His Twitter states its fucking hilarious, he also twitters I will be banned from public office. I don't find any of this funny.

The bullying by this group has gone on for far to long.

I would also like a list of names from Cllr Lucas, she states she does not call me a paedophile, many people know this is a lie. She states she here this description used at Rutland County Council, I do believe this, you only have to read Mr Harrison's Blog or Mr Burton's Twitter.

As I am copying this email to standards and publishing it on my blog, I would like Standards for England to answer the following.

Is it not the job of your investigators to point out lies they find from their investigations.

For example when Cllr Dewis clearly state he and others witnessed me acting in a agressive manner towards the Clerk Mr White, then the Clerk says this is not true in his statement.

Cllr Charles Haworth lies stating his mother is partially sited and retracts it a few second later by saying don't include that in my statement.

It is is in the public interest for people to know their councillors are liars.

Why do you not act upon other illegal activity such as Cllr Dewis private meetings to get rid off me, he admits these in his statements but other councillors lie in there statement by saying they did not happen.

I would also like to know why the tribunal and Standards, for England have ignored my letters stating I can not afford to travel, Leeds, seek legal advice or be represented at the tribunal.

The tax payer will be footing the bill for your legal representation.

It is unfair and unjust.

From

Martin Brookes

Councillor Joyce Lucas Oakham Town Council Standards For England

For Various Reasons I can only publish this the law prevents openness when it comes to local government.

I will ask Cllr Lucas to consider this, you harp on about you Christian kindness, if this is true then name those in Rutland County Councils Chamber who you say call me a paedophile.

Case no: Sfe-000022

Member: Councillor Joyce Lucas

Authority: Oakham Town Council

Principal
authority: Rutland District Council

Allegation: The member failed to treat others with respect

Date Received: 20 August 2010

Date
investigation
completed: 20 December 2010

Outcome: The ethical standards officer found that the member did not breach the code of conduct.

Summary:

It was alleged that Councillor Lucas described a fellow councillor as a paedophile when talking to a member of the public at a Council organised event. The Ethical Standards Officer considered that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Councillor Lucas acted in the manner alleged and therefore that there has been no failure on Councillor Lucas' part to comply with Oakham Town Council's code of conduct.

My summary: I hope your God forgives you! for your lies and the fear you have placed upon my friend who would not give a statement. Who still describes you as a liar. A true statement and not as half as bad as what you call me along with others. I beginning to like what the young folk call you. How is your broom stick?

Please remember the words I was parked illegally are quite significant laws do apply to all of us you are not exempt

Oakham Town Council Standards for England

Today I had an enjoyable day out. I returned to find a huge parcel from Standards for England this included draft findings regarding complaints from. All Oakham Town Councillors past and present.

Reading through it is clear these people have grouped together to suggest I am mad, have no friends and more. None of which is true.

It is clear Cllr Haworth knows more than he lets on, he is happy to reveal Doris Cook and Robin King, were responsible for the disgusting site called planetneptune used to attack me,  don't worry Councillor Haworth you are not being judged yet. You know who is responsible for the bullying, I have been subjected  to and so does Richard White who assisted with the removal of that site. One other point remember when they were attacking the late Nigel from Tesco, I came to visit you and within a hour the post had been removed.
As for the photographs of the ex Mayor Jan Fillingham, Cllr Haworth you told me you enjoyed seeing the photograph of her car parked illegally, but maybe I should not have put her name. I suggest you are very unstable, as I also remember at the same time we had a conversation about me becoming a Councillor and you said "don't worry some will be dead soon through old age so you wont have to wait long" You forgot to mention the vile threatening emails Mr Carey sent me from Arts 4 Rutland and his resignation when you mentioned that in your statement. You completely turned it around so it looked as if I had done everything wrong no surprise there.

Doris Cook I now know your sons name why did you say I followed him on Twitter and this was strange I follow 2000 people I did not know who your son was until today or even you had one. I do know you have a husband because of the threat he sent me via facebook.

Mr Beech you say your not a bully but you admit there was an incident at the beating of the retreat, I would say that was a good example of a thug.

Mr Tyers, Mr Harrison, Cllr Dewis you are the same as Mr Beech.

What I cant understand is why Standards can not see you are all a group of bullies.

Cllr Lucas when are you going to stop lying you say I never go online, I never read your blog, your name is often mentioned in statements people say I have not seen this or that but Cllr Lucas pointed it out to me.

Anyway whatever I say the officer is finding in all your favours and I hope you all sleep well knowing what you  have done.

Some of you question why I sent emails to so many people, when you are subjected to a group of bullies it helps to shout for help, but in this case you are so big, how could I win, most of you have big egos I have served the public for over 12 years how could I behave like he says, well you did.

I can assure you I am not mad. Looking at all the complaints Mr Beech made to the police is very surprising the police are fed up I think he has made more than me.

It may have been wrong for me to complain about your behaviour on this blog. I can assure everyone none of you have behaved any better, weather it be hate mail, comments, the orders for products and grave stones none of this is normal. And the behaviour continues with Cllr Jones commenting in a vile manner and Rutland County Council reluctance to expose the person(s) responsible for doing the same from the Council Chamber.

I find the draft findings shocking and will not co-operate further with Standards for England so you could say you won. You have succeeded in destroying my reputation.

For example the biggest joke is the finding suggests, I had power over Richard White the Town Clerk who locked me out of the office and obstructed me along with every other member that time. It suggests I am the bully. It  was disgusting how that man spoke to me many times 'Its like a football club here at Oakham Town Council follow the rules or get out.' he told me. If I had power over this man why would they never tell me how much he was paid! and if I had power I would have sacked him for his total lack of respect.

It is also suggested I have abused the police what a joke!

The only person who mentions what you all call me is Cllr Lucas to get herself out of trouble. She clearly says other call me a Paedophile, Gordon Sheasby Tells me he understands why  Mr & Mrs Tyers call me this because my photography hobby is seen as strange by you all.

In finishing Mr Beech why do you suggest your wife is scared of me. You silly man I don't even know who she is. I have never been violent to anyone in my life, In fact unlike you proudly boast you would like to resolve matters in a boxing ring. I admit I am would rather run away from confrontation and if that makes me a bad person then so be it!

The Standards Officer says I have shown no remorse, why? After the two years of hell, you have all subjected me to after Icomplained about the ex Cllr Fillinghams drunken behaviour why should I show remorse!

If a elderly resident came to me again saying she was being harassed by a drunken councillor I would do the same again. Cllr Fillingham made that woman's life hell. I provided her with some peace by purchasing her a caller display so she could ignore her calls.

Martin Brookes Standards For England Oakham Town Council Statement 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

This week I received a transcript of my final statement relating to the ridiculous volume complaints made against me by Rutland Chat Room members and Oakham Town Councillors and their friends.

And the sole complaint RCC allowed to be passed to Standards For England regarding Cllr Joyce Lucas Conduct. (I am told she is a Liberal Democrat and this is why it allowed to be investigated none of my complaint against any of the Tory mob have been dealt with correctly)

It is clear from Standards questions from day one Oakham Town Council were not going to accept me as a Councillor and the friends like Mr Beech who asked the Town Clerk Richard White what he was going to do to get rid of me. I  don’t know what he expected them to do as at the same time he had raised five complaints against members because they he say showed him no respect when he came begging £12,000 from the council to set up another boys club with tax payers money.

Despite finding out Councillors told Standards they did not trust me and that is why they obstructed me, (Who do they think they are?) I continue to give up hours of my time to assist with the investigation.

I said I would be open as far as the law will allow with what I can publish.

So here are photograph of  my two statements.

These people have cost the tax payer a huge sum of money, just to stop me being a Councillor.

I still question why they did not stand some one of their thick friends like Cllr Dewis against me.
Surely that would have been cheaper.

And why did Rutland County Council call me in to a private meeting with Mr Pook and the head of corporate service days before the deadline for candidates? They were also able to remove postings attacking me on the Rutland Chat Forum when I said I would complain to the electoral commission.

Although it looks a lot of text it is
not a complete accurate transcript of the recorded interview.

I do not say Yeah or You Know and why all the …….  ?

If you click on a page below it should enlarge…


Click Here to read Statement One