Issue - meetings

The Monitoring Officer advised the Sub-Committee that Cllr Hawker had decided not to attend the meeting but he had requested a postponement of the hearing on grounds set out in his email correspondence to the Monitoring Officer since the previous meeting on 20 March 2013. The grounds included:

• Cllr Hawker’s legal adviser had decided to stand down and he was now without legal advice and representation on a complex matter. He was unable to prepare his defence properly as a result;
  
  
• His witnesses were unable to attend the hearing;
  
  
• The process was unfair and was being rushed through; the substantive hearing was fixed without proper consultation with the parties.
  
  
• He had only received documentation from Mr Cain 0n 7 April 2013 leaving insufficient time for him to respond.
  
  
• It was inappropriate for this matter to be heard during the pre-election period.

Having heard from Mr Cain on behalf of the investigating officer, the complainant, Mr Taylor, and both independent persons, Caroline Baynes and Colin Malcolm, the Sub-Committee decided to agree a postponement of the hearing. 

The Sub-Committee had particular regard to the fact that Cllr Hawker was currently without legal representation following Mr Morland’s decision to cease acting for him after the previous preliminary hearing, and the unavailability of Cllr Hawker’s witnesses, particularly his key witness, Mr Parker, who was out of the country until 15 April. They decided an adjournment was appropriate in these circumstances in the interests of fairness to enable Cllr Hawker to prepare and put his defence properly.

The Sub-Committee wished to make it clear that it was Cllr Hawker’s responsibility to ascertain the availability of the witnesses he wished to call in his defence and, once a date has been agreed, to secure their attendance.  The Sub-Committee also made it clear that any further adjournment of the case would be highly unlikely to be granted.

The Chairman thanked the witnesses who had made themselves available for the hearing and apologised that it had not been possible to proceed.

The Sub-Committee therefore:

Resolved:

To adjourn the hearing on 10 and 11 April 2013 and to ask for the matter to be re-listed on the first available date after  3 June 2013

Alternative Resolution

The Chairman opened this part of the meeting by inviting the parties to indicate whether there was any possibility of a resolution being reached that would avoid the need for a full hearing.  A short adjournment followed to enable the parties to explore, on a without prejudice basis, the possibility of reaching a compromise, facilitated by the Monitoring Officer.

The meeting resumed at 11.45 am when the Sub-Committee were advised that there was no prospect of a compromise being reached between the parties.

Documents

The Chairman confirmed that, in addition to the papers circulated with the agenda,the Sub-Committee had received Mr Morland’s e-mails to the Monitoring Officer dated 27 February 2013; 1 March 2013; 2 March 2013; 6 March 2013 (2); and 18 March 2013.

Independent Person (Subject Member)

Mr Morland sought an adjournment on the basis of the objection he had raised in his e-mail to the Monitoring Officer dated 18 March 2013 regarding the hearing proceeding in the absence of Caroline Baynes, the independent person allocated for consultation by the subject member.  Caroline Baynes had advised that she would be unable to attend the meeting before 1.00 pm due to a prior unavoidable commitment. Mr Morland contended that it would be unlawful for the Sub-Committee to proceed in her absence.

Following representations in response from Mr Cain and advice from the Monitoring Officer, the Sub-Committee determined:

1. Whilst it was clearly desirable that both independent persons were present
    throughout the preliminary hearing the Sub-Committee did not accept that
    this was required as a matter of law. 

2. In order to avoid the delay that would result from an adjournment the Sub-
    Committee were minded to proceed to hear submissions from the parties on
    the preliminary matters before them, but to reserve making any
    decision on them until the subject member had had the opportunity to consult
    with the independent person (subject member) following her arrival at the
    meeting.

3.  The subject member was represented and there was no material prejudice to
     him in proceeding on this basis.
 

Mr Morland asked for his objection to this ruling to be recorded.

Jurisdiction

The Sub-Committee heard submissions from Mr Morland and Mr Cain on the question of jurisdiction and, in particular, the effect of the transitional provisions set out in the Localism Act 2011 (Commencement No. 6 and Transitional, Savings and Transitory Provisions) Order 2012 (the ‘transitional regulations’).

The meeting was then adjourned from 12.30 pm until 1.40 pm for lunch.

Upon resuming the meeting the Sub-Committee noted Mr Morland’s continuing objection to the preliminary hearing proceeding in the absence of the independent person (subject member) who had not yet arrived.

Investigating Officer’s Report

The Sub-Committee went on to hear submissions from Mr Morland and Mr Cain on the content of the investigation report and the nature and extent of the evidence that should be considered at any substantive hearing. The following points were covered:

·      The inclusion of material submitted by Cllr Hawker in his Updated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5