Misconduct investigation
Case reference FOI2026/00263
Received 3 March 2026
Published 10 April 2026
Request
I've been made aware of a misconduct investigation has been carried out via SDDC, assessing a case relating to a Cllr's Council role.
Please can I confirm whether this is the case and if I could be provided with a copy of this report?
In lieu of the full report, I would accept a summary and the conclusion of the report.
Response
The Council confirms it holds information that falls within the description specified in your request. However, in this instance, the following exemptions apply and in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this email acts as a Refusal Notice.
Section 22: Intended for future publication
This exemption applies because the report has not been finalised. Should the matter have progressed it may have been published if the Monitoring Officer had determined that a Standards Hearing Sub- Committee was to be convened. Upon Cllr’s resignation, the Monitoring Officer concluded that it is not in the public interest to continue with the investigation.
As the exemption is ‘qualified’ we have applied the ‘public interest test’. This means we have, in all the circumstances of this case, considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption. While we recognise that there is some public interest in release because disclosure would promote transparency and accountability, it would enhance the public’s understanding of government actions and its understanding of the code of conduct, this is outweighed by the public interest on safeguarding private and confidential sources, preventing harm to the subject member and witnesses, and prejudicing the course and integrity of code of conduct investigations.
Section 36: Qualified person’s opinion on prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs.
This exemption applies because it is considered by the Qualified Person (the MO) that the report has not been finalised. The Monitoring Officer must be in a position to instruct an officer to conduct an investigation on his/her behalf and examine and challenge a draft report before it is finalised. To publish the report in its current form would undermine the efficacy of the Code of Conduct investigations and reduce all parties trust and indeed the general public’s in the process. Furthermore, the Code of Conduct process is confidential until such time a Standards Hearing Sub- Committee is convened. This investigation was discontinued before the MO had consideration whether to convene a Standards Hearing Sub- Committee. As the exemption is ‘qualified’ we have applied the ‘public interest test’. This means we have, in all the circumstances of this case, considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption. While we recognise that there is some public interest in release because this would promote transparency and accountability as well as increasing public trust and confidence in the decisions made, this is outweighed by the public interest on safeguarding private and confidential sources, preventing harm to the subject member and witnesses, and prejudicing the course and integrity of code of conduct investigations. The draft report’s conclusions are not tested or agreed and there will be no ability for the MO to counter these. The General public are likely to assume that the conclusions are found when they are not.
Section 40(2) Personal data third party by virtue of section 40(3)(a)(i)
Under section 40(2) by virtue of section 40(3A) (a), personal data of a third party can be withheld if it would breach any of the data protection principles to disclose it. The draft report, summary and conclusions refer to third parties to the extent that however redacted the third parties could be identified. Personal data is defined under the Data Protection Act 2018 as data that is biographical in nature, has the applicant as its focus, and/or affects the data subject’s privacy in his or her personal, professional or business life. The Council has also considered whether disclosure would contravene Principle (a) of Article 5(1) of the General Data Protection Regulations - GDPR which requires ‘information must be processed fairly, lawfully and in a transparent manner’.
In this case the individuals would have a reasonable expectation that information would not be processed if it resulted in their identification. We do not have, nor do we consider it reasonable to seek the consent of the individual(s) concerned. The individual(s) concerned were aware that all information provided is provided in confidence unless the Report was required to be published for the Standards Hearing Sub-Committee. It is for this reason that disclosure in relation to this particular piece of information has been refused under 40(2) by virtue of section 40(3A)(a) FOIA 2000.
Documents
This is South Derbyshire District Council's response to a freedom of information (FOI) or environmental information regulations (EIR) request.
You can browse our other responses or make a new FOI request.