'An attack on my integrity' - Hartlepool election row reaches High Court

A High Court hearing at Hartlepool Civic Centre began on Thursday following a petition from Bob Buchan over claims of damaging information in Labour’s campaign material shortly before the 2021 local elections.

Mr Buchan, who previously represented the Independent Union on Hartlepool Borough Council, missed out on being one of three councillors elected in the Fens and Greatham ward to Labour’s Jennifer Elliott by 609 votes to 619.

The former councillor stated a letter just days before the May local elections incorrectly claimed he had voted in favour of a controversial development for 18 council homes in Hill View, in Greatham, which was approved in January 2021.

Mr Buchan reiterated he was not at the meeting when plans were approved and voted against a previous application for the development back in July 2020.

He added he felt there had been an “attack on his reputation and good standing in the community” with the comments made in the election material.

He said: “I take it very personally, I spent five years standing up for residents.

“The letter attacks my personal integrity because by law planning decisions are not political, they are by nature, a personal decision.”

Sarah Sackman, defending, argued the letter was making a “political” rather than “personal” point around Mr Buchan.

She said: “The statement was quite obviously political in nature and that’s precisely how the ordinary readers receiving the letter in Greatham and Fens ward would have understood it.”

Ms Sackman pointed to how Mr Buchan had shared a post on his political Facebook page, three days after a decision was made, claiming the Independent Union had delivered on an election pledge to build “good quality” council owned homes.

Mr Buchan said that, while he was against the Greatham development, he was in “favour of more affordable and social housing”.

It was also noted Mr Buchan appointed then Independent Union councillor colleague John Tennant as a substitute for the January planning meeting, who voted in favour of the plans

Yet Mr Buchan stated it was “illegal” to be predetermined going into a planning meeting.

In defence, Cllr Elliott said it was an “honest mistake” in stating Mr Buchan had voted in favour of the Hill View application.

She added she had viewed part of the online stream of the meeting where the decision was made but was unaware who was in attendance and subsequently read online articles stating just one Labour councillor voted against the plans.

She claimed when she went to type up the letter in question she attempted to do a “quick check” of the minutes on the council website but read the incorrect page.

Cllr Elliott said: “I was really frustrated with myself for managing to make that mistake.”

Ms Sackman also argued no “illegal practice was carried out”, the letter was “substantially true” and Cllr Elliott “reasonably” believed Mr Buchan had voted for the plans.

Cllr Elliott added the matter was considered by police, who concluded it would not be investigated further.

The hearing is to resume tomorrow, where it is expected judge Philip Kramer will make his decision.