The Monitoring Officer (MO) informed the committee of an email she had received from Councillor Sinclair on 28 January 2025 highlighting his intention not to attend the hearing and his continued beliefs that the MO was working out of her jurisdiction as the events had nothing to do with Ledbury Town Council.

The MO introduced her report, the following principal points were noted.

• The Council received a complaint on the 25th of September 2024 where
  Councillor Ewan Sinclair, had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct of Ledbury Town Council.
• At initial assessment, the MO considered that formal investigation was needed to enable her to consider the complaint fully. The formal investigation was completed by the Senior Governance Lawyer.
• It was noted that the legal adviser, Mr Davies was in attendance as permitted by delegation in accordance with the Council's arrangements for dealing with code of conduct complaints, this delegation was appropriate since Councillor Sinclair had been highly critical of her judgement and decisions and wished to avoid any appearance of being conflicted.
• Councillor Sinclair's expressed views in the case had been noted
  including his expressed intention that he would not offer an apology.
• The MO was also mindful that this was the third occasion that Councillor Sinclair had been found to be in breach of the Code of Conduct since being co-opted to Ledbury Town Council in 2021.
• The MO agreed with the investigator’s findings, which included breaches of the Code of Conduct by Councillor Sinclair. She did not think the matter was suitable for resolution under her delegated authority other than referral to the Standards Panel and in reaching this decision she had consulted with two of the Council's Independent Persons, who agreed.

The Senior Governance Lawyer (SGL) introduced her findings report, the following principal points were noted.

In coming to her opinion, the SGL used the evidence that was presented in the form of; the written complaint, supporting statements / evidence, interviews, the Subject Member’s and Complainant’s responses, the jurisdictional test and if jurisdiction was permitted, she considered from her findings if there had been a breach of the Code of conduct.

• In relation to the incident on 17 September 2024, after careful consideration of the law and guidance, she found that Councillor Sinclair was not acting in his capacity as a councillor and concluded that the Council had no jurisdiction to consider this part of the complaint.
• With regards to the email from Councillor Sinclair to seventeen recipients on 19 September 2024 she found Councillor Sinclair to be in breach of the code of conduct in terms of paragraphs; 1.1 I treat other councillors and members of the public with respect; 4.1 I do not disclose information which I believe or ought responsibly to be aware of, is of a confidential nature; and 5.1 I do not bring my role or local authority into disrepute. 
• Concerning Councillor Sinclair’s email to the Police on 20 September 2024 she found Councillor Sinclair to be in breach of the code of conduct in terms of paragraphs; 6.1 and the general principles of the Code of Conduct: 6.1 I do not use, or attempt to use, my position improperly to the advantage or disadvantage of myself or anyone else; General principle: I act with integrity and honesty; and General principle: I lead by example and act in a way that secures public confidence in the role of councillor. 
• The draft report had been sent to Mr Thomas and Councillor Sinclair on the 20th of November 2024 and comments were received from each as described at Appendix 18.
• The comments were reviewed as they must be in carrying out an investigation and are referred to where appropriate in the final report, which had been sent to Mr Thomas and to Councillor Sinclair on the 11th December and included the monitoring officers decision that the matter would be referred to the standards panel.
• In his absence it was explained that Councillor Sinclair vehemently refuted the Senior Governance Lawyer’s findings and believed the Monitoring Officer had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint as he maintained that it had nothing to do with Ledbury Town council and had made it clear that he would not make any apology in this case.

In response to the panel’s questions.

1. It was the SGL’s view that Councillor Sinclair had deliberately used his LTC email address in an attempt to use his positioning improperly to give the impression to the police that the matter was to do with Council business and should be viewed in such way.
2. The SGL was particularly concerned about the omissions to the Police, since the referral could have resulted in further action being taken against Mr Thomas by the Police, without their accurate understanding of what had happened.
3. The SGL confirmed that it was her opinion and view that there was no jurisdiction in investigating the events that took place on 17 September 2024, that there was no evidence that Councillor Sinclair was working in his capacity as a  Councillor, having merely met Councillor Tony Bradford and who just happened to be walking down the street together. The SGL reminded the panel that, that was her opinion, and it was for the panel’s determination. She also explained and drew the panel’s attention to the cases of Mullaney and Livingstone in which the courts had considered the meaning of acting in the capacity of a councillor.
4. It was highlighted that this case was in relation to a code of conduct complaint made against Cllr Sinclair and that Cllr Tony Bradford’s code of conduct was not in question.
5. Following Councillor Sinclair’s code of conduct breach in 2022, it was recommended that Councillor Sinclair undertake code of conduct training. It was not known if this had been completed.
6. With regard to his previous breach of the code of conduct in 2024, Councillor Sinclair had offered to apologise but this was not found satisfactory by Ledbury Town Council and the MO decided not to take it any further because it would not have been a good use of public funds.  

The complainant Mr Thomas was given the opportunity to speak.

• He found Councillor Sinclair's conduct to have been highly disrespectful and had no place in public life. He regarded his actions as being spiteful, arrogant, and pathetic. Where he should have shown empathy, instead in his email entitled “winding people up is fun” proves himself to be gleeful in his boastful account of the incident taken place on 17^th September 2024.
• It was questioned how a man of his calibre who deliberately sets out to cause distress to members of the public and enjoys doing so is seen as fit to serve as a member of Ledbury Town Council and that he should resign immediately and apologise. 

In response to the panel’s questions it was noted.

1. Mr Thomas agreed that a forced apology was worse than receiving no apology at all.

The chair asked those present whether they had any final comments. None were offered, the chair thanked those that attended, the meeting closed, and the panel convened in private to make their decision.