Case study - confidentiality and the public interest

Report: 8
Date: 05 October 2006
By: the Chief Executive and Clerk

Summary

This report looks at a case where the Adjudication Panel for England made an important decision in relation to the disclosure of confidential information and how this is to be considered in the context of the Member Code of Conduct.

A. Recommendation

That the Committee receives this report and discusses the implications of this decision.

B. Supporting information

1. To promote an understanding of the issues relating to ethical behaviour and the Code of Conduct, the Standards Board for England (SBE) produces a range of guidance and case reviews. As, in the normal course of events, standards committee members do not have to deal with that many actual cases, it is suggested that members may find it helpful at each meeting to have, for instance, an update on recent cases dealt with by the SBE or a report on particular issues in relation to the work of standards committees.

2. This current report concerns a case heard by the Adjudication Panel for England. Councillor Dimoldenberg of Westminster was alleged to have disclosed confidential information to a BBC journalist about the Council’s attempts to recover £27 million in compensation from Dame Shirley Porter for gerrymandering in the ‘homes for votes’ scandal. This was an alleged breach of paragraph 3(a) of the Code of Conduct.

3. The SBE case review is attached as an appendix. Committee members will recall that last year when the Standards Committee responded to the SBE consultation on a review of the Code of Conduct, one of the points that members made was that the Code is unsatisfactory in that, as it is phrased, disclosure of confidential information is an automatic breach of paragraph 3(a) and reference to the public interest in disclosure can only therefore be used to mitigate the sanction. This was one of the key issues in this case, with the Councillor arguing that he was entitled to disclose confidential information under Article 10 if the European Convention on Human Rights.

4. In considering this case, the Adjudication Panel for England found that paragraph 3(a) of the Code of Conduct failed to take the right to freedom of expression properly into account. The Panel criticised the paragraph for failing to allow consideration of the circumstances surrounding a disclosure of confidential information. In this particular case, the Adjudication Panel concluded that the public interest in non-disclosure outweighed that in disclosure and, therefore, that the Councillor had breached the Code.

5. The outcome of this case was, therefore, the significant ruling that the Code of Conduct should allow for the disclosure of confidential information when it is in the public interest. The SBE intend to issue further guidance on this matter and it is to be hoped that when a revised Code is produced it will take account of this ruling.

C. Race and equality impact

No specific implications.

D. Financial implications

None.

D. Background papers

None

E. Contact details

Report author: Simon Vile, MPA.

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback