A standards panel has upheld a complaint by a former mayor of Brighton and Hove that her deputy had touched her inappropriately as they posed for a photograph.
The complaint was made by Councillor Amanda Grimshaw who attended a Sussex University graduation ceremony with her then deputy Councillor Ty Galvin.
In investigating her claims, lawyers appointed by Brighton and Hove City Council also spoke to Councillor Sam Parrott and two female officers about inappropriate comments they said Councillor Gavin had made to them on more than one occasion.
The council’s panel – made up of three councillors and an independent chair – considered the findings of that investigation by Kirsty Cole, a solicitor at Bevan Brittan, on Friday (30 October).
The panel’s decision was published this morning (Tuesday 3 November). The panel found that Councillor Galvin had breached the council’s code of conduct for councillors. He said that he intended to appeal.
The standards panel decision said: “A meeting of the standards panel was convened to consider and determine an allegation by Councillor Amanda Grimshaw (the complainant) that Councillor Ty Galvin (the subject member) had failed to follow the council’s code of conduct for councillors (the code).
“The allegation was that the subject member had placed his hand firmly on the complainant’s buttock as they posed for photographs as mayor and deputy mayor when attending a Sussex University graduation event on (Friday) 25 July 2025.
“That allegation and reports of other inappropriate comments towards women were referred for investigation by an external investigating officer (Kirsty Cole).
“The investigating officer concluded that witnesses described a pattern of behaviour in which the subject member made inappropriate and sexualised remarks to female officers and to a prospective councillor, that on balance the subject member had touched the complainant inappropriately at the graduation event and that he had thereby failed to follow a number of provisions of the code.”
The panel also said: “The panel found the evidence of the staff witnesses and the prospective councillor to be consistent and credible.
“They described a pattern of inappropriate, sexually suggestive and unwanted comments towards them, including about their appearance, offers of alcohol and invitations to attend events at Brighton Racecourse.
“The panel found such testimony to be sufficiently relevant and proximate to be treated as similar fact evidence when considering the complainant’s allegation as to the Sussex University graduation event.
“It was clear to the panel that the complainant held a genuine belief that she had been touched inappropriately by the subject member when they both posed for photographs at the graduation event.
“The panel recognised that a victim of such conduct may not disclose the incident until they reach a safe space which may be sometime afterwards.
“The panel also recognised that the complainant was discharging the civic role of mayor at the time and would have been concerned to maintain the dignity of that office by not drawing immediate attention to the incident.
“While the complainant and the subject member were the only two witnesses as to the incident itself, the panel were mindful of the evidence of a council officer to whom the complainant spoke in person after the incident, expressing her anger and disgust at the subject member’s conduct.
“The words recalled by the officer were consistent with those the complainant asserted she had used and were memorable to the officer as they were more robust than the language he was used to the complainant using.
“Having regard to the complainant’s evidence, that of the council officer and the similar fact evidence, the panel considered that on balance it was more likely than not that the subject member had touched the complainant inappropriately and that his conduct was intentional.
“The panel considered that the subject member was acting as a councillor at the time of the incident.
“He was attending the graduation event as deputy mayor and was wearing the chains of that office. As such, the code applied to his conduct.
“The panel considered that by his conduct, the subject member had failed to treat the complainant with respect contrary to … the code.
“His conduct had been unwanted, demeaning and distressing to the complainant and violated her dignity.
“For the same reasons, the panel also considered that the subject member had sexually harassed the complainant contrary to … the code.
“In addition, the panel considered that by so acting towards the complainant when she was carrying out the role of mayor and him deputy mayor, he had adversely affected the dignity of both civic offices and had thereby brought his office and the authority into disrepute.”
The panel sat at Hove Town Hall and was made up for three councillors – Pete West, Lucy Helliwell and Andrei Czolak – as well as the independent chair Paul Cummins.
Its findings are due to be reported to a meeting of the full council.
The panel has limited sanctions but recommended that Councillor Galvin apologise to Councillor Grimshaw and be offered appropriate training.
It also said that it would recommend that Councillor Galvin be formally censured by the council, removed from any committees and sub-committees and not be appointed to any outside body to which the council makes appointments.
The panel added that Councillor Galvin and Councillor Grimshaw have the right to appeal against the panel’s decision.
Councillor Grimshaw issued a joint statement with fellow Labour councillor Sam Parrott. They said: “Today’s decision brings to an end what has been an incredibly stressful and upsetting 15 months. It has been a sad and difficult time and one we wish we had never experienced.
“But perhaps one of the saddest aspects of this whole episode is that, even in the 21st century, women can still find themselves in a position where they feel too fearful to speak out, call out wrongdoing and stand up for themselves, even when they hold positions of responsibility and influence.
“Sadly, these things happen to women far more often than many realise. We spoke out in order to give others the belief and hope that when they speak, they will be believed and heard.
“We wish things could have been resolved differently. But when the person Amanda complained about failed to recognise the impact of his actions and make an apology, this was the only path left available.
“The actions of his representative have compounded the misogyny we’ve experienced – personal attacks, mocking disability and breaching confidentiality intended to protect female council officers. These actions are intended to silence women. But they will not.
“We hope that something positive can come from what has been a very difficult and unfortunate experience for all the women affected in this case.”
Councillor Galvin, who was suspended by Labour over the allegations and now sits as an Independent, was represented at the panel hearing by journalist Greg Hadfield.
Councillor Galvin said that he intended to appeal and added: “I am appalled by the decision of the standards panel hearing into Councillor Amanda Grimshaw’s vexatious and defamatory complaint against me.
“I always wanted the complaint to be heard in public. Councillor Grimshaw did not.
“So it was behind closed doors that I provided proof that I was not guilty of either of the two allegations made by Councillor Grimshaw concerning the Sussex graduation event that we both attended on (Friday) 25 July 2025 and an event in Moulsecoomb, which only I attended.”
Councillor Galvin said that Councillor Grimshaw “vetoed an informal resolution agreed between senior council officers and me shortly after the complaint was submitted in October last year”.
He said: “This has resulted in a long-drawn-out nightmare for me and my family. Last Friday (30 October) – 15 months and four days after the complaint was made – I finally got the chance to clear my name.
“Outrageously, I was not allowed to call any defence witnesses. Nor was I allowed to question any prosecution witnesses because Councillor Grimshaw did not call any.”
He said that Councillor Grimshaw did not attend the hearing, either in person or remotely, and that aspects of the conduct of the investigation and hearing were now the subject of formal complaints.
Absolute travesty of justice
This smacks of a stitch-up. No witnesses and no opportunity to rebuff, at best, hearsay evidence. No wonder this administration is in such a mess. This is not justice in any sense of the concept. Perhaps they just wanted him out of the way for trying to hold them to account?
How has he tried to hold them to account?
It’s he said, she said. If she’s right, then her bravery is to be admired. If not, he’s to be pitied.
Agree entirely. But there’s a real danger that a miscarriage of justice has been done because of the way the complaint has been handled. I should add that Ty Galvin is also a well respected member of the local community. He’s been active in all sorts of community & charity activities long before he was elected as a councillor. I’ve known him over 25 years and the behaviour described is totally uncharacteristic of the man I know. I’d call him an old fashioned gentleman, thoughtful, sociable, anxious to put others at their ease with impeccable good manners.
Exactly. I have known Mr Galvin for some years and he has always been a gentleman and a happily married man. Why would he suddenly go off the rails at 85 and in a public place where anyone could see?
Cllr Grimshaw is well respected. I can’t imagine anyone in her position not being 100% truthful not least of all due to the public scrutiny she has endured. He should be held to account.
Not any more she isn’t. This whole thing stinks. If a man is going to touch a woman inappropriately, do you really think he would do so in a public place surrounded by hundreds of parents and graduates and while their Mayoral photographs were being taken?
History would say absolutely they would, sir.
Of all the places to behave inappropriately, what sort of mad man would choose the middle of a University graduation day and what Mayor could possibly feel a hand on her bottom through acres of thick and heavy padding and material, even if her Deputy were such a mad man?
There is something both grim and foul about these allegations which does not ring true. The fact that ex-Mayor Cllr Grimshaw couldn’t even be bothered to turn up for Standards committee proceedings last week, and insisted they be private proceedings, not allowing Cllr Galvin to question any witnesses should have seen them dropped for the pantomime that they undoubtedly were. Yet it was fine for Grimshaw to gather comments from her female Councillor friends and officers and quote them as if evidence rather than hearsay.
Misconduct in public office is a charge which should now be levelled in her direction at speed, not least considering all the council time and public money wasted on ‘investigating’ this allegation. Grimshaw is also of a generation who would have given an unwanted advance a good slap or well-aimed knee in the groin and be done with it. To have everyone believe she is incapable of handling herself in such a scenario and in the face of an 85 year old man is frankly ridiculous. It is clear as day an ulterior motive was at play.
Not that I am comparing or anything but the likes of Jimmy Savile was doing that on national television.
I’d also say it’s pretty naive to assume that a woman of any age who has been assaulted will respond with a slap or a knee to the groin, regardless of the age of the attacker.
The missing link here, is who benefited from this. That often informs you to the why.
Who became deputy mayor instead of Cllr Galvin and what was the nature of their relationship with Mayor Grimshaw? Often these things reveal motives
Journalist Greg Hadfield has compared the way this complaint has been handled with the way the Local Government Association recommends and the discrepancies are alarming from the manner in which interviews were recorded (they weren’t & handwritten notes were destroyed) to the lack of information given to Cllr Galvin about the accusations being made. I am also deeply concerned that reasonable adjustments were not made for the fact that he is visually impaired – the kind of adjustments we’d expect in the workplace – and I cannot understand why the supporting evidence he put forward was not even considered.
https://greghadfield.medium.com/guidance-on-member-model-code-of-conduct-complaints-handling-september-2021-d06a795a9904
It is a well known tactic of the council to use allegations of misogyny or sexual harassment to try to silence people. It’s happened to me despite having witnesses they won’t speak to them preferring to believe on the balance of probabilities instead . It’s a disgusting tactic to use
2019/20, I was part of Hove LP CLP and they planned that against the BAME officer but the person who was planning to call him a misogynist but she send the plan to the whole group then apologised for it with the horse had bolted.
Bloody hetrosexuals, time to make them illegal 😉
The intention here appears to be to smear Mr Galvin. The reality is that a further dark shadow is cast over this Labour administration’s abject use of a smoke and mirrors disciplinary system which removes transparency and replaces it with a self serving and opaque veneer. It is endemic in all that they do, including the sham ‘consultations’ on changes to city transport. How much longer do they think they will get away with it?
My sympathies go to Mr Galvin.
Ultimately it appears Cllr Galvin did not get the transparent and public hearing he requested or the opportunity to question witnesses and the former Mayor, whose friends are claiming on social media that she won’t be “silenced” didn’t actually turn up to have her voice heard, so silenced herself. Did she have prior knowledge of the Committee outcome, one wonders? What else could explain why she didn’t take her own allegation seriously enough to turn up after over a year of “investigation” and the alleged spending of over a third of a £1m on outside legal bills?
They are all supposed to be Labour Councillors, so was this a dirty attempt to get rid of the last of Old Labour?
It is Cllr Grimshaw who should resign as she has not played fair or attended the committee.
I wonder why Cllr Grimshaw didn’t report the incident to the police so they could investigate and take proper action against Cllr Galvin ?
Perhaps she heard the story of a previous lady mayoress who reported a distinguished military gentleman she didn’t want attending an organisational Christmas party at the Hove Club to the Police for “sexual assault” who came seriously unstuck when another party goer turned out to have filmed the whole confrontation between the two, proving him innocent and purely defending himself from said ex lady mayoress. Luckily for that ex-mayoress the gentleman concerned has not sued. Yet.
The point being it’s easier to steer a council process than a police process if there’s a choice.