The Deputy Monitoring Officer submits a report to enable the Standards Hearing Sub-Committee to consider a complaint against a councillor following a decision of the Standards Advisory Board on 9th February 2026.
Minutes:
Amy Owen-Davis, Deputy Monitoring Officer, submitted a report providing details of an investigation into complaint number 11/2025 against Councillor Kitterick and outlined the Standards process to date.
It was noted that a transcript of the relevant Council meeting had been circulated to all parties and agreed as an accurate record. The Sub-Committee, following discussion with Councillor Kitterick, agreed that it was not necessary to play or consider the audio recording provided and would rely on the transcript as the record of proceedings.
The Deputy Monitoring Officer outlined the legal framework for consideration of the complaint and drew specific attention to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to freedom of expression. It was advised that Members must consider whether the comments made constituted political speech, which would attract enhanced protection, or whether they were personal in nature and therefore subject to restriction. Relevant case law and guidance were highlighted in the report to assist Members in reaching their determination.
Councillor Kitterick was invited to address the Sub-Committee. He set out his position that the comments in question were made within the context of political debate and were intended to challenge decision-making and hold other Members to account. He stated that robust language was an inherent part of political discourse and that his comments did not exceed acceptable boundaries. He further expressed concern that any finding of breach could have a detrimental impact on freedom of expression and democratic debate.
Members of the Sub-Committee discussed the report and sought clarification from Councillor Kitterick on the context and nature of his remarks. It was noted that Councillor Kitterick confirmed he had been acting in his capacity as a Councillor at the time of the incident and did not dispute the accuracy of the transcript. He acknowledged that, with hindsight, some wording may have been expressed differently, however maintained that his conduct did not amount to a breach of the Code of Conduct.
The Independent Person, Michael Edwards, was invited to give his views in relation to the complaint. He advised that, whilst acknowledging the importance of political debate, he considered that certain comments made extended beyond political expression and were personal in nature. He supported the conclusions of the report and advised that the Sub-Committee should determine where the boundary lay between robust political debate and unacceptable conduct.
In response to questioning, Councillor Kitterick indicated that he would be willing to undertake further training, if required, but did not consider an apology to be appropriate in the circumstances.
At the conclusion of submissions, Councillor Kitterick was given the final opportunity to sum up his case. Following this, Councillor Kitterick left the meeting while the Sub-Committee retired to deliberate and reach its decision.
The Sub-Committee then withdrew to consider the matter in private session. Following full and detailed consideration of the report, the transcript and the representations made by all parties, the Sub-Committee reconvened in public session to deliver the recommendations of the Sub-Committee.
The Chair announced that the Sub-Committee had reached a decision having taken into account all of the evidence presented.
RESOLVED:
a) That Councillor Kitterick has breached paragraph 2(a) of the City Council’s Code of Conduct by failing to treat others with respect. On 18th September 2025, in the course of a speech at Full Council concerning a Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman report of maladministration, Councillor Kitterick, in referring to Councillor Dawood, attacked the person not the issue by making an irrelevant and unwarranted reference to his taking of Councillor’s Allowances.This was disrespectful and designed to humiliate.
b) A separate complaint of disrespect displayed towards Councillor 2 was, on balance, not found to have constituted “disrespect” because although the comments were offensive and designed to embarrass Councillor 2, they were broadly related to the issue under debate and benefitted from the protection afforded to ‘political expression’ under Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Hearing Panel makes the following recommendations to the Standards Committee:
i) That Councillor Kitterick provide Councillor Dawood with a written apology within 14 days.
ii) That there be a press release of the findings.
iii) That the Deputy Monitoring Officer arranges training for Councillor Kitterick on the Code of Conduct, noting his verbal agreement to attend the same.
There being no further business, the meeting closed at 7:07pm.