Ombudsman-related hearing told actions had “detrimental” impact on council

A NEYLAND town councillor has been suspended from office for four years after a tribunal found he had breached the code of conduct.

The decision was announced at Haverfordwest Court Court on Friday (Jan 16) following Ombudsman-related proceedings concerning complaints made by Mayor Peter Hay and town clerk Elizabeth Anne Matthews.

The hearing, which stretched over two days, heard evidence from the clerk and the mayor and examined a series of allegations relating to Cllr David Devauden’s conduct and dealings with the council office.

Proceedings opened at 10:00am on Thursday (Jan 15) with a courtroom packed with members of the public and other Neyland town councillors. The judge, flanked by two magistrates, said he wished to deal first with preliminary matters.

Disputed bundle amended

Cllr Devauden, who represented himself, raised a preliminary point about what was described as an agreed bundle of “undisputed facts,” arguing that some entries had been written incorrectly and could be misleading.

He told the tribunal the bundle stated he had accused the clerk of “committing illegal acts against the council,” but said his position was that the clerk and others had conspired to tamper with a government document, which he described as fraud.

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

Clerk gives evidence

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.

In questioning, Cllr Devauden asked when they first met. Ms Matthews replied: “It was when you joined the council.”

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

Ms Matthews disputed this and told the tribunal she did not start working at the post office until 2025, adding that she served many customers and did not remember him.

Minutes, recordings and allegations of leaks

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

Cllr Devauden told the tribunal he had asked for minutes but said they were not provided. Ms Matthews said he had asked for minutes covering a number of years and that it was not something she could do immediately while busy.

Cllr Devauden argued that minutes should be provided “on demand,” referring to what he said was the position under the Local Government Act. Ms Matthews replied that while minutes had to be provided, it was “within a reasonable time,” rather than instantly.

Ms Matthews was also questioned about why she had not passed over recordings requested by Cllr Devauden. She told the tribunal she was concerned about protecting the council and said she believed he had been leaking information to the press. She said press coverage of Neyland Town Council had “always been negative,” and alleged that Cllr Devauden was the source.

Cllr Devauden denied leaking information and said he had only been to the newspaper on two occasions and that each time his name had been included in the reporting.

Allegation of intimidation denied

The tribunal heard an allegation that Cllr Devauden had shouted at Ms Matthews when she refused to provide minutes.

Cllr Devauden denied shouting and told the tribunal it was “your word against mine,” adding that he had walked out of the office and thought to himself that the situation was “toxic.”

Ms Matthews alleged that after requesting minutes Cllr Devauden remained in the office, threatening to report her to the police, standing in the doorway and leaving her feeling she could not escape. Cllr Devauden denied threatening her. Ms Matthews told the tribunal the matter was “in the emails.”

When challenged on her evidence, she said: “What is written in my statement is true according to my absolute belief.”

Mayor called to the stand

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

The tribunal heard evidence relating to Remembrance Sunday arrangements, including why Cllr Devauden had not been selected as parade marshal and why he did not read the order of wreaths.

Cllr Devauden said 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 line of questioning and asked Cllr Devauden where it was leading. Cllr Devauden said he wanted to prove the mayor was a “pathological liar.”

Cllr Devauden referred to the claim that councillors had been told they had to choose between him or “the band” as the reason he was overlooked. Mayor Hay told the tribunal he did not mean the Milford Haven Town Band and said he did not know which organisation had complained.

“Whether it was the Cubs, the Brownies or the Scouts, I’m not sure who complained about Cllr Devauden,” he said. “I do not engage in tittle-tattle. I just knew a complaint had been made.”

With no further questions considered relevant at that stage, the judge directed that the mayor could step down from the witness box and take a seat at the back of the courtroom. The hearing then adjourned briefly.

Evidence over documents and disputed dates

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

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

Cllr Devauden challenged aspects of the evidence, including uncertainty over dates. He told the tribunal 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 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.

“Nearly eighty” and unrepresented

Cllr Devauden appeared without legal representation during the two-day hearing and at times seemed to struggle with the tribunal process. In evidence he told the tribunal he was “nearly eighty” and added: “My brain is not as quick as it used to be.”

Observers in court noted that he did not mount an effective cross-examination of witnesses and was repeatedly directed back to the issues the tribunal was required to determine. As a result, wider concerns about council governance — which have been the subject of public controversy in Neyland in recent months — were not explored in detail during the proceedings.

Tribunal retires to consider sanction

When the tribunal returned on Friday morning, the judge questioned Cllr Devauden about his understanding of the authority of the tribunal and the impact of his actions.

“Do you understand the authority of this tribunal?” the judge asked. Cllr Devauden replied: “Yes.”

The judge asked whether he recognised the impact his actions had had and whether he could understand why he was in breach. Cllr Devauden told the tribunal he may have been in breach in 2023, but said in relation to last year he believed he had seen “criminal behaviours” and had to speak out.

The judge then asked whether he wished to take the opportunity to apologise.

Cllr Devauden replied: “Yes, I am very sorry for the things I’ve done and I take full responsibility. It would be foolish not to.”

The judge and magistrates then retired.

Aggravating factors outlined

The tribunal said there were very few mitigating circumstances, noting only that Cllr Devauden had been in service for a short period and had a clean record up until the matters raised.

However, the tribunal listed a series of aggravating features. These included findings that he had taken no responsibility towards Ms Matthews, shown no respect towards the Ombudsman process, and that there had been a pattern of repeated behaviour.

The tribunal also found that he had acted constructively and wilfully to hurt Ms Matthews and said the impact on her mental health had been severe, with the hearing told she had taken time off in June 2024.

Further aggravating points included references to threatening emails sent in the week before the tribunal, an admission that he had not taken the time to read the code of conduct, and failures to follow the Nolan Principles.

Four-year suspension imposed

At the conclusion of proceedings, the tribunal imposed a sanction of a four-year suspension from office. It also ordered that Cllr Devauden undertake further code of conduct training sessions.