A complaint made by the former mayor of Brighton and Hove about the former deputy mayor was heard in secret by a council standards panel yesterday (Friday 30 October).
The panel, made up of an independent lay member and three councillors sat for more than 10 hours, starting at about 10am and ending at about 9pm.
The Brighton and Hove City Council standards panel’s decision is expected to be announced on Tuesday (3 November).
The panel spent the first two hours deciding whether it should sit in public – the normal procedure – or whether to hear the complaint behind closed doors.
This was only the second hearing to be held behind closed doors in 16 years. Last time, in 2013, concerns about public disorder prompted the panel to exclude the press and public amid heavy security. The police were called.
After the panel’s members heard submissions for and against a motion to sit in secret yesterday, solicitor Jonathan Goolden read the panel’s decision into the record at Hove Town Hall.
The panel was made up of three councillors and an independent chair, Paul Cummins, who attended remotely. Mr Cummins, a solicitor and former local authority monitoring officer at other councils, did not have a vote.
The decision to sit in secret was made by Labour councillors Andrei Czolak and Lucy Helliwell and Green councillor Pete West, a former mayor who now chairs the council’s Audit, Standards and General Purposes Committee.
Mr Goolden said: “The panel’s view is that, exceptionally in this case, the need for the council as a data controller to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals referred to in the investigating officer’s report overrides the general public interest in transparency, having regard to the sensitive nature of the evidence, the junior status of the staff witnesses and that the decision notice giving the outcome will be published in any event.
“The panel was not satisfied that a partial exclusion of public and press would be practical given the interrelated nature of the evidence.”
In the open part of the panel hearing, before the press and public were excluded, it was confirmed that the complaint was made by former mayor Amanda Grimshaw.
She complained about the behaviour of former deputy mayor Ty Galvin at a Sussex University graduation ceremony at the Brighton Centre in July last year.
The decision to sit in closed session at Hove Town Hall also meant that a 100-page report on the complaint will also be kept secret.
Earlier, journalist Greg Hadfield, representing Councillor Ty Galvin, the former deputy mayor, said: “Councillor Galvin explicitly waives his right to privacy in this matter and does not seek the protection of a closed door.
“He actively demands public transparency so that the evidence can be heard, examined and reported clearly without the toxicity of local rumours or partial leaks.
“We must look directly to Brighton and Hove City Council’s own constitutional arrangements. (The council’s) ‘Procedure for dealing with allegations of breaches of the code of conduct’ states as clear as day that standards panel hearings must be conducted openly wherever possible.
“Indeed, the non-binding advice from the LGA (Local Government Association) makes plain that it should be the default position.
“We must also apply the mandatory statutory public interest test. Under the 1972 Act (the Local Government Act), an exemption can only be maintained if the public interest in confidentiality outweighs the public interest in disclosure – and here the public interest heavily favours openness.
“This complaint involves allegations concerning a public official at a civic event (a graduation ceremony for Sussex University on Friday 25 July 2025). It involves two senior public officials acting in their official civic capacities at the time.
“The public and the electorate of Brighton and Hove have an absolute democratic right to witness the open administration of justice concerning their elected representatives.”
Mr Hadfield said that it had taken more than 15 months for the complaint to come before the standards panel.
He also said: “Excluding the press is a discretionary power, not a legal requirement.
“In the interest of open justice, local accountability and adhering to (the principle) of your own council procedures, I respectfully urge this panel to reject the motion to exclude the public and order that this hearing proceed openly.
“Councillor Galvin has not been allowed to see witness statements. He has not been allowed to question witnesses. And he’s not allowed to call witnesses.
“This is no way to treat an innocent person. It has to end – today – in the name of open justice and transparency, in line with the codified procedures of Brighton and Hove City Council.”
The investigating officer, Kirsty Cole, a solicitor at Bevan Brittan, said: “I accept Mr Hadfield’s assertion that the primary complaint relates to two public figures.
“It necessarily also involves the consideration of evidence given by other parties and, in respect of those other parties, two are relatively junior officers, who found it quite difficult to come forward and give the evidence which they gave, and another elected member.
“The two officers aren’t public figures. They’re not senior officers.
“In his own written submissions, Mr Hadfield recognised that the concerns expressed are of a sensitive and personal nature and, while I fully accept that generally there should be a presumption in favour of openness, the LGA guidance which Mr Hadfield referred to on complaints handling does recognise that a hearing may be held in private in whole or in part if it’s considering exempt or confidential information as defined by the Local Government Act.
“He’s already recognised that, in this case, there are clear grounds for exemption as it includes consideration of evidence relating to individuals and it’s material that that evidence is of an extremely sensitive nature and (the LGA guidance) also goes on to say that where there’s a strong likelihood of disclosure of their identities, the hearing shouldn’t be held in public.
“One of the reasons Amanda Grimshaw didn’t feel able to come today to give evidence in person was because of the fact that some of this information has got into the public domain and she’s now on social media and that just shows the harm of bringing this evidence into the public domain.
“I’ve already made a submission that there clearly are grounds for exemption in this case under the Local Government Act.
“But Mr Hadfield is quite correct that you must then go on to decide whether the public interest in maintaining privacy outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
“Now it would be my submission that in this case the public interest in maintaining privacy does outweigh the public interest in disclosure for the following reasons.
“Firstly, as I’ve already said, the very sensitive and personal nature of the allegations. The fact that witnesses … are not public figures. There is a strong likelihood that their identities would be disclosed if it were to be heard in the public domain, however carefully the hearing is conducted.
“And then the impact that that would cause to those individuals in terms of embarrassment and distress.
“And I’d also submit that consideration should be given to the reputational impact to the council, to Councillor Galvin and to the complainant whatever the outcome of the hearing.
“In respect to Mr Hadfield’s suggestion that the hearing be in part public and in part private … In my view, it would simply be unworkable in this case.”
Mr Hadfield said: “I took on board Mr Goolden’s very wise advice not to delve into any of the substantive matters in this application (to sit in public) and yet I see the independent investigating officer has just done so.
“Not only that but (she) has referred, rather extravagantly in my opinion, to the extremely sensitive information contained in the report.”
He said that many statements in the report should be disregarded because they were not relevant to the complaint. But, he said, there was relevant evidence which Councillor Galvin would be happy to share in public.
He added: “We’ve already had toxic online reports and leaks about Councillor Galvin’s suspension, about his resignation as deputy mayor, about his suspension from the Labour Party, all of which happened shortly after the complainant turned down the chance of an informal resolution.”
Miss Cole said that she had highlighted information that was sensitive and of a personal nature to show why it was not practical or feasible to hold the hearing partly in public and partly in private.
Ultimately, the panel agreed and the hearing went ahead in private, depriving the public of the chance to hear and assess the evidence themselves.
I think that the panel should refer itself to the Standards Committee…….
Would that be the Sub-Standard Committee?
Lol
Stop conflating private and secret.
They aren’t the same. Treating them the same leads to confusion.
And this isn’t the first time B&H News has done so.
It’s a strange meeting that’s supposed to be a secret when it’s been scheduled on the councils meeting diary for well over a week.
My money is on Cllr Galvin as the innocent party if he tried to insist on full transparency. Anyone against FULL TRANSPARENCY would appear to have something to hide. How dare they waste our taxes on this and keep us in the dark. Reveal the results right now and who needs to resign over this..
Isn’t the point of an investigation to establish the truth? Yet the truth is being publicly suppressed and denied in this case.
Is the Councillor involved therefore expected to live under a cloud of suspicion for the rest of their lives without their guilt or innocence established?
This is not just a serious breach of the public service role of a council to be transparent in the public interest (for which Council Leader Sankey must ultimately carry the can), it is a human rights issue if there is to be no formally declared findings and therefore, no end to this matter, for the Councillor involved.
Why would Councillor A be regarded as the more important party in this case over Councillor B to the point that Councillor A is apparently allowed to dictate the process and outcome, asserting their supposedly superior human rights?
A barrister speaks.
Equality under the law is not optional. As any genuine barrister will confirm.
lol
I wouldn’t want Tracey as my Barrister.
She’s good on asserting her views but that’s not the same as knowledge of the lae
Chris C. To keep it simple for you, if one party has been unfairly treated compared to the other, this invalidates the whole of the (quasi-Judicial) proceedings last Friday, meaning the Council have just dug themselves an even bigger hole.
Definition of Equality Under the Law
Equality under the law is the principle that every person is subject to the same laws and has equal rights, protections, responsibilities and opportunities under the legal system, regardless of their race, gender, religion, social status, wealth, disability or background.
It means that nobody is above the law and nobody should be unfairly disadvantaged or discriminated against when the law is applied.
It seem that Ms. Ward does not understand that different procedural protections can be entirely lawful when the parties have different roles and circumstances. Invoking equality and human rights requires recognising that the complainant and witnesses possess those rights too.
The irony is that the subsequent publication of the findings demonstrates precisely the distinction Ms. Ward overlooked. The hearing was confidential, but its outcome was not.
If you want an open democracy go to North Korea,
I wonder if the Met Office now name every storm in a teacup?
I guess we’ll also find out which forecast was correct, on Tuesday.
And whoops, the Head of Demon-cratic Services has resigned after four years. Move along everyone. Nothing to see here.