Report on complaints about the conduct of Mr Gerry Kelly MLA on 21 June 2013

Gerry Kelly.pdf (11.21 mb)

Click here to download the full report.

Introduction

1. The Committee on Standards and Privileges has considered a report from the Northern Ireland Assembly Commissioner for Standards on his investigation into four complaints against Mr Gerry Kelly MLA. The Commissioner’s report and the complaints are appended to this report.

2. The four complaints have for their subject Mr Kelly’s actions on the evening of 21st June 2013 in the Carrick Hill area of North Belfast. Three of the complainants (Mr Jim Allister QC MLA, Mr Jonathan Craig MLA and Mr Luke Bloomer) refer to video footage which they allege shows Mr Kelly obstructing police officers by blocking the departure of a PSNI vehicle. These complainants (plus a fourth, Ms Heather Templeton) believe that by his actions that evening Mr Kelly breached the Assembly’s Code of Conduct and variously cite the principles of public duty (i.e. the duty to uphold the law), leadership, promoting good relations and respect to support their claims.

3. The Tour of the North parade took place in north Belfast on 21st June 2013. Mr Kelly had been in attendance but then departed when it appeared that the area was calm. However, tensions in the Carrick Hill area were subsequently raised and Mr Kelly was asked to return. Upon returning Mr Kelly learned that a young man from the area had been arrested. Mr Kelly approached a police Land Rover and spoke to one of the officers in the vehicle in relation to this youth. It was what subsequently happened that formed the basis for the allegations in the four complaints.

The Commissioner’s investigation and findings of fact

4. The Commissioner initially suspended his investigation into these complaints as the incident in question was also being investigated by both the PSNI and the Police Ombudsman. When these investigations had concluded the Commissioner undertook his investigation, during which he watched a number of videos of the incident, sought further information from the four complainants, obtained information from the PSNI, the Police Ombudsman and the Official Report, and interviewed Mr Kelly under oath. The Commissioner then established a number of facts which are set out in paragraph 18 of his report and include the following points in relation to the actions that Mr Kelly took.

Mr Kelly made his way to the location having been advised of the situation that was developing and became aware that a youth had been arrested;

Mr Kelly approached the first in a line of police Land Rovers and spoke with the passenger. As a result of that exchange he believed that the vehicle would move forward a short distance and then pull in to facilitate further discussion;

Mr Kelly asked the small crowd that had assembled to clear the way so that the vehicle could move forward. The crowd complied with his request;

The first vehicle did move forward but did not stop;

The second and third Land Rovers in the line of vehicles followed the first;

The fourth vehicle in the line moved forward slowly with both its blue lights and headlights flashing;

Mr Kelly walked directly in front of the moving vehicle and shouted at the driver to ‘pull in’;

The vehicle continued to move forward very slowly. The siren was sounded once; and

Mr Kelly took hold of the grill on the bonnet of the vehicle and was carried forward slowly for a short distance before the vehicle stopped.

5. The Commissioner also points out that whilst Mr Kelly was being carried on the bonnet of the vehicle, and for a short time after it had stopped, a number of the crowd struck the vehicle. Following this, Mr Kelly challenged the senior officer at the scene. Mr Kelly claimed, and the officer accepted, that he was trying to defuse the situation. Mr Kelly then asked the crowd to stand back from the vehicle, to allow it to move away. The crowd complied with this request.

6. Both the driver of the vehicle and Mr Kelly later accepted informed warnings for their part in the confrontation. Mr Kelly accepted his warning for impeding the police. Impeding a constable in the execution of his duty is a criminal offence contrary to section 66 of the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1998. Mr Kelly signed the Certificate of informed warning immediately below the following text – ‘I admit the offence outlined and understand the meaning of an informed warning’.

The Commissioner’s decision

7. Before the Commissioner takes a view on the merit of an allegation, he must first satisfy himself that the respondent was acting in his capacity as a Member at the relevant time. The Commissioner was satisfied that at the relevant time in this case Mr Kelly was acting, in part at least, in his capacity as a Member. Mr Kelly himself accepted this. The Commissioner was therefore satisfied that Mr Kelly’s actions are within the scope of the Code.

8. The Commissioner notes that Mr Kelly admitted the offence of impeding the police in his informed warning. Although Mr Kelly described his acceptance of the informed warning as a technical admission, which was made only after he had taken legal advice, the Commissioner notes that the acceptance of the warning was a clear admission of guilt of criminal conduct. Mr Kelly also admitted at interview with the Commissioner that it followed that this was inconsistent with upholding the law. The public duty principle of the Code of Conduct provides that Members have a duty to uphold the law. The Commissioner has therefore concluded that Mr Kelly has breached this principle. The Commissioner’s reasoning is set out at paragraphs 20 to 23 of his report.

9. The Commissioner is also satisfied that Mr Kelly breached the leadership principle. While the Commissioner acknowledges that Mr Kelly did demonstrate positive leadership, and that his intention was to diffuse a tense situation and to calm things down, when he impeded the police ‘he set a very poor example and most certainly neither promoted nor supported the public duty principle’. The Commissioner’s reasoning on this matter is set out in paragraphs 24 to 30 of his report.

10. The Commissioner has not found that Mr Kelly’s actions amounted to a breach of either the promoting good relations or respect principles. The Commissioner’s reasoning on these matters is set out in paragraphs 31 to 36 of his report.

The Committee’s considerations

11. In line with the usual procedure, Mr Kelly was provided with a copy of the Commissioner’s report. Mr Kelly was informed that he may provide the Committee on Standards and Privileges with his comments in respect of any matter raised within the report. He was also advised that he may choose to appear before the Committee to make his comments in person and to respond to any questions that members of the Committee may have. Mr Kelly neither chose to appear before the Committee nor to provide it with any additional comments.

12. The Committee on Standards and Privileges considered the report at its meeting on Wednesday 28th May 2014 when the Commissioner attended and answered members’ questions. The Committee reflected on the matters raised in the report and on the answers given to their questions by the Commissioner. Having given the matter careful consideration, the Committee is satisfied that Mr Kelly did breach the Code of Conduct. The complaints are therefore upheld.

13. In reaching its decision the Committee noted that Mr Kelly had been acting in his capacity as a Member, making representations on behalf of his constituents. That meant that Mr Kelly was required to act in accordance with the requirements of the Assembly’s Code of Conduct.

14. The public duty principle of the Code of Conduct provides that Members have a duty to uphold the law and to act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them. Mr Kelly, in accepting an informed warning for his conduct on the evening of 21st June 2013, admitted the offence of impeding a constable in the execution of his duty. It follows that, in committing this offence, Mr Kelly has failed to uphold the law as required by the Code of Conduct.

15. The principle of leadership in the Code of Conduct states that Members should promote and support the other principles by leadership and example in order to establish and maintain the trust and confidence of the people of Northern Ireland, and to ensure the integrity of the Assembly and its Members in conducting business. The Committee acknowledges that Mr Kelly did seek to demonstrate positive leadership on the evening in question. His intention had been to defuse a tense situation and he used his influence positively to direct the crowd and facilitate the passage of the police.

16. However, despite this, Mr Kelly failed to demonstrate leadership when he obstructed the police vehicle. His actions set a poor example and resulted in number of the crowd striking the police vehicle.

17. The Committee accepts the Commissioner’s analysis of why Mr Kelly’s conduct was not inconsistent with the principles of promoting good relations or respect.

18. The Committee believes that the unlawful behaviour of a Member is a serious matter and that Mr Kelly should therefore apologise to the Assembly for his conduct.

19. Standing Order 69B (2) provides that, in consideration of a report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges where the Committee has found that a member has failed to comply with a provision of the Code of Conduct, the Assembly may impose a sanction upon that member. Standing Order 69B (3)(c) provides for the Assembly to impose the sanction of exclusion of the member from proceedings of the Assembly for a specified period.

20. The Committee believes that, in this particular case, it would be justifiable to impose such a sanction upon Mr Kelly. The Committee therefore recommends that the Assembly imposes upon Mr Kelly the sanction of exclusion from proceedings of the Assembly for a period of five days. The Committee shall bring forward a motion to this effect.

21. In coming to the conclusion that this sanction would be appropriate, the Committee has taken into consideration the following factors identified by the Commissioner:

(i)       Mr Kelly was an experienced leader.

(ii)      He attended at the scene with good intentions to try to defuse a tense situation.

(iii)     The poor example he gave by breaking the criminal law resulted in others striking a police vehicle.

(iv)     His criminal conduct was undertaken on the spur of the moment without due regard to the consequences.

(v)      That illegal conduct received widespread media coverage.

(vi)     Both before and after that conduct Mr Kelly did use his influence to calm the situation.

(vii)    As a result of his conduct Mr Kelly received an informed warning.

22. Members of the Assembly are influential leaders, to whom the public often look to provide an example. The Committee therefore recognises that Members can play a constructive and welcome role in lowering community tensions. The Committee accepts that Mr Kelly had intended to make a positive contribution on the evening 21st June 2013 and that some of his actions did assist in defusing a tense situation. It is, however, most regrettable that Mr Kelly undermined his positive actions when he obstructed the police. While Mr Kelly acted on the spur of the moment, his conduct was nevertheless unlawful. The Assembly’s Code of Conduct requires that Members uphold the law through their actions and any failure to do so should be dealt with seriously by the Assembly.

Click here to download the full report.