The Monitoring Officer submits a report.
Minutes:
The Monitoring Officer submitted a report which included the full Investigator’s report, supporting documentation and responses from the Investigator and the Subject Members’ solicitor with regard to the prehearing process and in particular details of disputes over the Investigator’s findings of fact.
The Standards Hearing Sub-Committee followed the hearing procedure and heard submissions from the Investigator and the Members’ Solicitor, together with evidence called on behalf of the Subject Members, Councillors Mohammed Dawood and Abdul Osman, with regard to the Investigator’s finding that the Council’s Code of Conduct had been breached by them.
Summary of complaint
The alleged incident related to the alleged conduct of Councillors Dawood and Osman whilst at the Coronary Care Unit of Leicester Royal Infirmary on 2 April 2010. The Councillors had been taken to the Unit by a family member of a patient who had died the previous day. The family wanted to take the body away for burial. Mrs Wheeler, a nurse, alleged that both Councillors were threatening and intimidating, and disturbing the ward and patients.
Code of Conduct
The paragraphs of the Council’s Code of Conduct that had allegedly been breached were:
3(1) You must treat others with respect;
3(2)(b) You must not bully any person;
3(2)(c) You must not intimidate or attempt to intimidate any person who is or is likely to be –
(i) a complainant
(ii) a witness, or
(iii) involved in the administration of any investigation or proceedings.
Summary of Evidence and representations made
The Chair informed the meeting that the Sub-Committee would initially consider matters of disputed facts relating to whether the Councillors were acting in their official capacity at the time of the alleged incident. If they were found to be acting in their official capacity, the hearing would continue, but if not, any actions on that day would not be covered by Leicester City Council’s Code of Conduct for Elected Members and the matter would be brought to an end. Neither the Investigator nor the Subject Members’ Solicitor objected to this approach.
The Sub-Committee heard representations from the Investigator, the Subject Members’ Solicitor and the Subject Members’ witnesses. The Investigator did not call any witnesses. The Sub-Committee also had regard to case law relating to “official capacity.” The main issues of dispute related to whether the Councillors were acting in their official capacity and as such whether it was their intention to present themselves as Councillors, whether they were wearing their ID badges, the timing of when they gave out their business cards and whether they were acting on Council business or were present as relatives and/or friends of the family.
They then retired to deliberate in private. Upon their return they resolved as follows:
RESOLVED:
That the Standards Hearing Sub-Committee, having taken into consideration the written evidence, representations from the Investigator and the Subject Members’ Solicitor, and witness statements on the disputed issues of fact to do with the issue of whether the Subject Members were acting in their official capacity as Councillors, finds the following facts:
1) That, with respect of Councillor Abdul Osman, the Sub-Committee does not accept that he went into the hospital ward with the intention of declaring himself as Councillor to gain an advantage. On the balance of probability, the Sub-Committee does not accept that he was wearing his Council ID badge and that if he presented his business card, this was provided at the end of the conversation and was therefore not relevant. The Sub-Committee also finds that no Council business was being conducted on the ward that day. Based on these findings of fact the Sub-Committee concludes that Councillor Abdul Osman was not acting in his official capacity and was there in a private capacity. Therefore, the Code of Conduct does not apply to this matter and no further action shall be taken.
2) That, with respect of Councillor Mohammed Dawood, the Sub-Committee does not accept that he went into the hospital ward with the intention of declaring himself as Councillor to gain an advantage. On the balance of probability, the Sub-Committee does not accept that he was wearing his Council ID badge and that he did not present his business card. The Sub-Committee also finds that no Council business was being conducted on the ward that day. Based on these findings of fact the Sub-Committee concludes that Councillor Mohammed Dawood was not acting in his official capacity and was there in a private capacity. Therefore, the Code of Conduct does not apply to this matter and no further action shall be taken.