URL: https://wolverhampton.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=9807

Decision Maker: Governance and Ethics Sub-Committee

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: The Chair welcomed all parties to the hearing and invited all those present to introduce themselves. All parties did so, and the Chair confirmed that both the Complainant and Subject Member were in attendance.   Shamsher Zada, Deputy Monitoring Officer explained the hearing procedure and outlined the case that was before the Sub-Committee, concerning allegations made by the Complainant against Councillor Greg Brackenridge in his capacity as a Councillor at City of Wolverhampton Council.   The allegations related to concerns regarding Councillor Brackenridge and his military service. In particular allegations of “stolen valour” claims and, that Councillor Brackenridge had stated, whilst Mayor at a Council event, the unveiling of the Saraghari Monument that he “served as a Royal Marine” whilst carrying out Mayoral duties in September 2021, when that was allegedly not in fact the case and for giving the impression that he had served as a Royal Marine whilst chairing the Council’s Armed Forces Covenant Board.   Melvin Kenyon, Independent Investigator, presented his report to the Sub-Committee and explained his findings.   The Complainant made a verbal submission and outlined the complaint to the Sub-Committee.   The Sub-Committee were offered the opportunity to question the Independent Investigator and Complainant on their submissions. The Independent Person then gave their views on the matter.   Councillor Greg Brackenridge was offered the opportunity to question the Independent Investigator and Complainant on their submissions.   Councillor Greg Brackenridge made a verbal submission stating that he had spent 30 weeks going through the Royal Marine training process but had to withdraw from it before he completed the training due to personal circumstances. He explained that the statements he had made were true and that he was sorry if he had misled anyone.   The Sub-Committee and other persons present were offered the opportunity to question Councillor Brackenridge on his submission.   The Independent Investigator responded to comments made and set out his view that Councillor Brackenridge should have made it clear that he was a Royal Marine recruit and did not pass out and therefore did not serve as a Royal Marine.    The Sub-Committee retired to review the evidence and deliberate on whether Councillor Brackenridge had breached the Councillor Code of Conduct.   The Sub-Committee reconvened to announce their findings.   The Sub-Committee concluded that, on the balance of probability, Councillor Brackenridge was acting in his official capacity when he made the statements and gave the impression of having served in the Royal Marines. The Sub-Committee determined that, in making those statements, Councillor Brackenridge should have reasonably foreseen that members of the public and the Armed Forces community might interpret them as implying he had served as a Royal Marine.   The Sub-Committee also observed that Councillor Brackenridge had multiple opportunities during the investigation to engage and present his perspective to the Independent Investigator. It did not accept his claim that concerns over potential media leaks prevented him from participating in the process.   Furthermore, the Sub-Committee recognised that Councillor Brackenridge’s actions were likely to have caused distress among members of the public and the Armed Forces community.   The Sub-Committee concluded that Councillor Brackenridge had not served as a Royal Marine, as he had not completed the training and “passed out” and could not therefore call himself a Royal Marine Commando. They further concluded that he had been a recruit and that it would be misleading and give a false impression for him to state that he had served as a Royal Marine.    As a result, the Sub-Committee concluded that on the balance of probability Councillor Brackenridge had breached the following provisions of the Code of Conduct:   1.    Paragraph 1.1 “I treat other councillors and members of the public with respect.” By embellishing his military service, he showed disrespect towards those who have served, been injured and died in military service and towards the families of those military personnel who have lost or otherwise supported those people.   2.    Paragraph 6.1 “I do not use, or attempt to use, my position improperly to the advantage or disadvantage of myself or anyone else.” He embellished his military role and presented himself as having “served as a Royal Marine”, when he had not been anything more than a Recruit. He did this to increase his personal stature and to gain political advantage   3.    Paragraph 5.1 “I do not bring my role or local authority into disrepute.” In undertaking the actions above, it would bring him and the Council into disrepute.   4.    Paragraph 8.2 “I cooperate with any Code of Conduct investigation and/or determination.” Councillor Brackenridge did not cooperate with the investigation and the Independent Investigators requests for interviews.   Councillor Greg Brackenridge was offered the opportunity to comment on the Sub-Committees’ conclusions. Councillor Greg Brackenridge requested information on the right to appeal. Shamsher Zada, Deputy Monitoring Officer advised, under The Localism Act 2011 there was no right of appeal against a determination following Initial Review, Investigation or Hearing. However, if a Subject Member was unhappy with an outcome, they may wish to seek legal advice about making a Judicial Review claim through the courts.   The Sub-Committee and other persons present were offered the opportunity to ask any final questions.   The Sub-Committee then retired to consider the potential sanctions available under the law, in accordance with the Council’s adopted arrangements. The Sub-Committee noted that the powers available to it, under the current law in the Localism Act 2011, were very limited and noted that Government had committed recently to increase the sanctions available under the Code of Conduct. The current powers of sanction did not include a power to suspend, remove a Councillor or reduce allowances.     The Sub-Committee reconvened and announced its sanctions.   Resolved:   1.    That Councillor Greg Brackenridge issue a public apology in a specified form by the Hearing Panel to the Complainant and the Armed Forces Community, and in future, requested that Councillor Brackenridge made it clear that he was a Royal Marine Recruit and not a Royal Marine as he had not passed out.   2.    That the Leader of the Council be recommended that Councillor Greg Brackenridge be removed from the Resources and Equality Scrutiny Panel given that the Council had adopted ‘Armed forces’ as a locally protected characteristic.   3.    That the Leader of the Council be advised of the outcome of the Sub-Committee in order that they consider whether any other group disciplinary action is appropriate.   4.    That the Sub-Committee publishes a Decision Notice in respect of this outcome as soon as possible.   5.    That the findings of this Sub-Committee be reported to the Council.

Date of Decision: July 28, 2025