Public Interest Considerations

The public interest should be considered in deciding (i) whether a complaint against a councillor can and should be investigated, or (ii) whether an investigation should continue. 

There is no widely accepted definition of the public interest but it can be described as something which is of serious concern and benefit to the public. The public interest therefore relates to something which has an impact on the public and it is not merely a matter that the public find to be of interest or a matter that impacts solely on an individual (although an individual may be more directly impacted by the matter than the wider public). The public in this context may refer to a distinct section of the public such as a small community or interest group as well as the wider public. 

 

1. Seriousness 

The more serious the alleged breach, the more likely it is that it will be investigated. Investigators should consider whether the alleged breach is so serious that an investigation is in the public interest. 

When deciding the level of seriousness of the allegation, relevant considerations are: the extent to which the councillor was responsible for or was to blame for the alleged breach; the circumstances of the complainant; and whether the alleged conduct caused harm to any person. 

1. To what extent was the councillor responsible for or to blame for the conduct complained of?  

Questions of responsibility or blame are likely to be determined by the councillor's level of involvement; the extent to which the alleged breach was premeditated and/or planned; whether they have previously being investigated on a similar matter, or have been sanctioned for a previous breach; whether the conduct complained of is ongoing, repeated or has escalated; the councillor's length of service; and level of experience/knowledge of the councillor in relation to the issue in question. 

2. What are the relevant circumstances of any person affected by the alleged breach and has the alleged breach caused harm to any person?  

Although a breach of the Code may affect the public at large, it can also cause harm to individuals or to specific groups or bodies. In considering the seriousness of a breach, the circumstances of any person affected by the breach are relevant and these should be taken into consideration. Investigators should also have regard to whether the alleged breach was motivated by any form of discrimination against a person’s ethnic or national origin, sex (male, female), disability, age, religion or belief, sexual orientation or gender identity; or the councillor demonstrated hostility towards a person based on any of those characteristics. In deciding whether an investigation is required in the public interest, investigators should take into account any views expressed by the complainant, or any other person affected, about the impact that the alleged breach has had on them. 

2. Proportionality  

The cost of the investigation should be considered, especially where it could be regarded as excessive when weighed against any likely sanction. The public interest should not be decided on the basis of cost alone, but it is a relevant consideration when making an overall assessment of the public interest. In determining whether an investigation would be in the public interest, it should be considered whether it would be more appropriate for the Monitoring Officer to exercise his powers in relation to “other action” instead of an investigation. 

These considerations will assist the Monitoring Officer and Investigators in identifying the public interest, but they are not exhaustive and not all are relevant in each case. In any event, consideration of the public interest is only one of a number of criteria which must be met in deciding whether to investigate a complaint: crucially the complaint must also be supported by evidence of a breach of the Code.