UKIP Face Legal Action - Rutland - 29 July 2013

7/27/2019 UKIP Face Legal Action - Rutland - 29 July 2013

1/6

REPORT NO: 173/2013

SPECIAL COUNCIL

Date 29 th July 2013

UPDATE ON SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10 th 2013

Report of the Interim Monitoring Officer

STRATEGIC AIM: Al l

1. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise on progress against theresolution made by Council at its Special Meeting on 10 th J anuary2013, and to seek a resolution authorising further action.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 That the Council notes that the resolutions set out at section 3below remain valid in respect of any actions to be taken against

Cllrs Gale, Wainwr ight and Richardson. This i s despite the factthat they have informed the Council that they are now members of UKIP, and have formed a polit ical group of Rutland CountyCouncil, to be known as the Rutland Group of the United KingdomIndependence Party, thus d isbanding the Rutland Anti-Corruptiongroup.

2.2 That the Counci l grants an indemnity to, and support to the Chief Executive and/or officers, to take legal action in her/their ownname(s) for defamation by Council lors Gale, Richardson andWainwright of the Rutland Group of the United Kingdom

Independence Party. Such indemnity is to be given on cond itionthat any sums recovered by any off icer as a result of the actiontaken (including, but no t limited to, costs and damages) shouldfirst of all be applied to defray any costs incurred by the Councilin indemnifying and suppor ting such legal action, before anyremaining balance is r eceived by the officer concerned.

3. REASONS FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 Legal advice was taken on the basis of concerns raised during thedebate on the Notice of Motion proposed at the Council meeting on 8 th


2/6

October 2012 concerning the actions of the Rutland Anti-CorruptionGroup, comprising Councillors Gale, Richardson and Wainwright.

3.2 At a Special Council meeting on 10 th J anuary 2013 the Councilconsidered the legal advice obtained, and the options available. The

Council resolved:

3.2.1 That authority be given to take legal action to seek an injunctionto prevent harassment of the Chief Executive and other officersby the Anti-Corruption group and its members be AGREED

3.2.2 That indemnity be granted to, and support to the Chief Executiveand / or officers, to take legal action in his/their own name(s) forharassment by the Anti-Corruption and its members be

AGREED 3.2.3 That all communications to any part of the Council from the Anti-

Corruption Group and its members be subject to a Single Pointof Contact, subject to periodic report back from the Chief Executive and use of GCSX be AGREED

3.2.4 That authority to take legal action in respect of the defamation of the authority by the Anti-Corruption Group and its members beDEFERRED

3.2.5 That the Chief Executive be instructed to make a complaint onbehalf of the Council to the Police against the Anti-CorruptionGroup and its members in respect of: (a) criminal harassment of officers of the Council, and/or (b) breach of the MaliciousCommunications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003;be DEFERRED

3.2.6 That resolution to resume a wider independent review of theimpacts of the actions of the Anti-Corruption Group and itsmembers on the Council be DEFERRED

3.2.7 That a supplementary estimate for the purpose of resolutions 1and 2 be APPROVED .

3.3 Given recent developments, it is now appropriate to update the Counciland seek further authority to take legal action.

4. DEVELOPMENTS SINCE JANUARY / THE CURRENT POSITION

4.1 Between J anuary and J une 2013, the three councillors continued thesame pattern of conduct that had led to concerns being raised,including, but not limited to:4.1.1 Accusations of corruption made against officers and members

both internally and to external third parties without any apparent justification;

4.1.2 Lack of engagement with appropriate methods of raisingconcerns; including refusal to use scrutiny panels, not takingadvantage of the opportunity to raise questions and movemotions at Council meetings, and recently (since becoming

members of UKIP), sending apologies to all meetings which theyare due to attend.

- 2 -


3/6

4.2 In addition, the members concerned refused to accept the Single Pointof Contact (SPOC) arrangement, and although they did send somecorrespondence through this route, they also continued to contactindividual officers, and continued not to use the GCSX e mail system,contrary to the resolution at 3.2.3 above.

4.3 The three councillors were particularly active in terms of their conductin the immediate aftermath of the J anuary Council resolution, andwhilst they appear to have moderated their conduct for a while towardsthe end of this six month period, this was for a relatively short period of time, and there was clear continuity in terms of the councillorsoperating as a group, the nature of their conduct, and in terms of thevictims of their conduct.

4.4 During this period, officers carried out preparatory work to proceed withthe legal proceedings authorised, including preparation of witnessstatements and collation of supporting documentary evidence.

4.5 The Rutland Anti-Corruption Group included Rutland CountyCouncillors Gale, Richardson and Wainwright. On 20 th J une 2013these three councillors announced that they had joined UKIP, and onor around 28 th J une 2013, they formally notified Rutland CountyCouncil of the disbanding of The Rutland Anti-Corruption Group andthe formation of "The Rutland Group of United Kingdom IndependenceParty" comprising Cllrs Gale, Richardson and Wainwright with Cllr Galeacting as Group Leader.

4.6 The fact that the three councillors have now joined UKIP does notinvalidate the J anuary Council resolution, as there is clear continuitybetween their actions as the Rutland Anti-Corruption Group, and theiractions since they joined UKIP.

4.7 On 20 th J une 2013 an e mail was sent to Carol Chambers, DeputyChief Executive, by the UKIP press officer, who informed her that CllrGale had asked him to send it across. The press release was headedUKIP welcomes three more councillors.

4.8 The content of the press release was subsequently published on the4Rutland website, under the heading UKIP statement. A statement ismade on the 4Rutland website that the views expressed on it are thoseof Richard Gale, David Richardson, and Nick Wainwright, and theytherefore clearly associate themselves as holding the views expressedin the UKIP statement.

4.9 The allegations made by the three councillors on the 4Rutland website,are seriously defamatory of officers responsible for the leadership of Rutland County Council, particularly the references to suspectplanning approvals and the squandering of millions of pounds of grant

funding and a growing suspicion and concern of serious fraud andcorruption. There is also a statement that the current misuse andmisappropriation of public money is an utter disgrace.

- 3 -


4/6

4.10 The statement suggests that the Chief Executive and other seniorofficers are guilty of serious fraud and corruption of a criminal nature,and that those officers, fearful of being exposed by the RACG,engaged in an unlawful cover up, and made false allegations to thepolice. Such allegations are obviously damaging and upsetting. They

gain credence by being included in a press release issued by anational political party.

4.11 Members will no doubt recognise that these latest statements are notsimply further examples of the behaviour previously exhibited, but takethe allegations to a new level of unacceptability, making unequivocalpublic statements about the integrity of the Chief Executive and othersenior officers.

4.12 The allegations made in the press release sent through by UKIPspress officer, and repeated on the 4Rutland website are entirely false.

4.13 Statements such as those now being made by the three councillorsconcerned are seriously damaging to the professional reputations of the officers concerned, and could have a negative impact on theircareers, and their ability to seek employment elsewhere. The Councilhas a duty of care to protect its officers and offer them a safe workingenvironment.

4.14 In addition, these false and defamatory statements made againstofficers seriously impact on the Councils ability to recruit high calibreofficers, at a reasonable cost, particularly to senior or high profilepositions. Councillors will be aware that the Council currently has avacancy for a permanent Monitoring Officer. Unless the Council is seento take action to protect its officers in these circumstances, it is likely tohave difficulty in recruiting, unless it is able to offer exceptionally highsalaries to mitigate the risks, which in the current financial climate, it issimply unable to do.

4.15 Letters dated 1 st J uly 2013 were sent to each of the three councillorsinvolved, requesting a full and unequivocal retraction and apology tothe Chief Executive and other officers, as a matter of urgency. Each

was informed that if there was no response within 14 days the Councilreserved the right to take the necessary steps to commence legalproceedings.

4.16 Cllr Gale replied on behalf of all three councillors in a letter dated 10 th J uly 2013, but his letter did not address the points raised in the letter of 1st J uly 2013, and instead claimed that he and Cllrs Richardson andWainwright were themselves being subjected to harassment.

4.17 There has also been correspondence with the UKIP press officer inrespect of the press release, and this has received no substantive

response.

- 4 -


5/6

4.18 A further letter has been sent to the three councillors stating that it isnot accepted that they are being harassed, and requiring them to:

Remove the article dated 20 th J une 2013 containing defamatorystatements from the 4Rutland website,Refrain from making further defamatory statements orallegations,Provide a full and unequivocal retraction and apology to theChief Executive and Senior Officers.

A response has been requested by 24 th J uly 2013.

5. SPECIFIC ISSUES

5.1 Legal issues The Council has already authorised action to be taken against thethree members concerned in respect of their harassment of the Chief Executive and/or officers. The behaviour complained of has continued,and the press release issued upon them becoming UKIP members airsmatters publicly, and with the apparent support of a national politicalparty. It is appropriate to commence legal proceedings for defamationand / or harassment, as the continued actions of these councillors isupsetting to officers, and damaging to their reputations, and to thereputations of the authority as a whole. Attempts to resolve the matterby correspondence have been unsuccessful, hence legal proceedingsmay need to be issued to resolve the matter.

5.2 Financial issuesLegal proceedings will incur additional costs. It is difficult to be preciseat this stage about the level of costs, as it depends very much on theamount of work necessary to progress the matter.

6. RISK MANAGEMENTRISK IMPACT COMMENTSTime High It is appropr iate to take legal action immediately

following council resolutionViability Medium There are always litigation risks, but the advice

received supports the viability of the proposed action

Finance Medium Litigation will incur costs, but this must be weighedagainst the ongoing impact to the council andofficers of allowing this behaviour to continuewithout challenge

Profile High There is likely to be signif icant public and nationalinterest in any action taken, particularly now that themembers concerned belong to a national poli ticalparty

EqualityandDiversity

Low There are unlikely to be any implications

- 5 -


6/6

- 6 -

Background Papers Report Author Report to Meeting of Special Council Helen Edwards10 th J anuary 2013.

Tel No: (01572) 728420 e-mail: [email protected]

A Large Print or Braille Version of this Report isavailable upon request Contact 01572 722577.

Documents

UKIP Face Legal Action - Rutland - 29 July 2013