Ombudsman-led proceedings heard at Haverfordwest County Court

A HEARING to determine whether a Neyland town councillor breached the code of conduct opened in dramatic fashion at Haverfordwest County Court on Thursday (Jan 15), with the town clerk called as the first witness.

The special proceedings, which began at 10:00am, relate to an Ombudsman investigation into complaints made about Cllr David Devauden, including complaints from Mayor Peter Hay and the clerk herself.

The courtroom was busy, with members of the public and councillors from Neyland, with the judge sitting alongside two magistrates.

Former councillor sought anonymity

At the outset, the judge dealt with preliminary matters, including an email from former councillor asking that his name not be mentioned during the proceedings.

The court heard that the councillor had resigned from the council and cited stress and mental health pressures. However, the judge said he had been a serving councillor during the relevant period and therefore a public figure in that context. The judge noted that no Article 8 application had been received and said the email did not amount to a request to keep his name out of the press. However, The Herald, has decided to do so.

Dispute over “undisputed facts” bundle

Cllr Devauden, who was representing himself, raised a preliminary point over the wording of what was described as an agreed bundle of “undisputed facts,” arguing some entries were inaccurate and potentially misleading.

He told the court that the bundle suggested he had accused the clerk of “committing illegal acts against the council,” but said his position was that he had alleged tampering with a government document, which he described as fraud.

The judge agreed to make minor amendments to the bundle in Cllr Devauden’s favour.

Clerk called to the stand

The first witness was the clerk, who confirmed her full name as Elizabeth Anne Matthews and confirmed that she had made a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Cllr Devauden asked when they had first met. The clerk replied: “It was when you joined the council.”

“But that’s a lie isn’t it,” Cllr Devauden told the court, claiming he had met her in 2008 when she worked at the post office and that he had seen her regularly.

The clerk disputed this and said she did not start working at the post office until 2025, adding that she served a large number of customers and did not remember him from that time.

The judge asked Cllr Devauden whether he wished to challenge any disputed evidence, noting it would be his opportunity to do so.

Minutes and recordings

The hearing then moved to issues around council minutes and access to meeting recordings.

Cllr Devauden told the court he had asked the clerk for minutes but said they were not provided. The clerk replied that he had asked for “nine years of minutes,” and that this was not something that could be done immediately while she was busy.

Cllr Devauden disputed the timeframe and argued that minutes should be provided “on demand,” referring to what he said was the position under the Local Government Act.

The clerk told the court that while minutes had to be provided, it was “within a reasonable time,” rather than instantly.

The clerk was also questioned about why meeting recordings requested by Cllr Devauden had not been provided. She told the court she was concerned about protecting the council and said she believed he had been leaking information to the press.

She said press coverage of the council had “always been negative,” and claimed it was Cllr Devauden who was leaking information to newspapers.

Cllr Devauden denied leaking information and told the court that on the occasions he had spoken to the press, his name had been included and nothing had been “secret.”

Allegation of intimidation

The court heard an allegation that Cllr Devauden had shouted at the clerk when she refused to provide minutes.

Cllr Devauden denied shouting, telling the court it was “your word against mine,” and said he had walked out thinking the situation was “toxic.”

He also said the clerk had told him he could obtain minutes from the county records office, but claimed that when he attended he found nothing had been filed since 2000.

The clerk told the court she had believed they had been filed, describing it as a mistake.

The clerk also alleged that after requesting minutes, Cllr Devauden remained in the office and threatened to report her to the police, standing in the doorway and making her feel she could not leave.

Cllr Devauden denied threatening her with the police. The clerk told the court the matter was “in the emails.”

When challenged, she told the court: “What is written in my statement is true according to my absolute belief.”

Mayor called

Mayor Peter Hay was the next witness to give evidence. He confirmed he had also made a complaint regarding Cllr Devauden.

The court heard evidence relating to the Remembrance Sunday arrangements, including why Cllr Devauden was not selected as parade marshal and why he did not read the “order of wreaths.”

Cllr Devauden told the court he had carried out the role for “ten or 15 years,” while the mayor said he believed it had been done once before.

The judge questioned the relevance of the evidence as it was being explored, asking Cllr Devauden where it was leading. Cllr Devauden said he wished to show the mayor was a “pathological liar.”

Cllr Devauden referred to an allegation that the mayor had told councillors they had to choose between him or “the band” as the reason he was overlooked.

The mayor told the court he did not mean the Milford Haven Town Band and said he did not know which organisation had complained, suggesting it could have been “the Cubs, the Brownies or the Scouts.”

He said: “I do not engage in tittle-tattle. I just knew a complaint had been made.”

With no further questions considered relevant by the court at that stage, the judge directed that the mayor could step down from the witness box and take a seat. Proceedings then adjourned briefly.

Witness statement and ‘Sarah’s Law’ references raised

After the break, the hearing moved to evidence relating to requests for council documents and allegations surrounding access to information.

During the morning session, the court heard reference to a witness statement dated Friday, April 19, 2024, which included mention of ‘Sarah’s Law’. In questioning, one witness told the court she had not been well at the relevant time.

Cllr Devauden challenged parts of the evidence, including uncertainty over dates, and told the court that without a clear date he could not properly respond, asking how he could “admit or argue” evidence where timings were disputed.

There were also references in court to whether Cllr Devauden had asked for information about individuals, which he disputed, and further discussion about requests for historic minutes and access to recordings, including what could reasonably be provided and when.

The hearing also heard exchanges about whether individuals felt intimidated during interactions at the council office, which Cllr Devauden denied.

The case continues.

Additional reporting by Seren Baker and Tom Sinclair