Ged Fitzgerald arrested on suspicion of both conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and witness intimidation
Ged Fitzgerald (pictured above), Chief Executive of Liverpool City Council has been arrested on suspicion of both conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and witness intimidation.
He is also Chief Executive of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and was the Combined Authority Returning Officer (CARO) for the recent LCRCA Mayoral election.
Both bodies have public meetings this week (Liverpool City Council meets on Wednesday and the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meets on Friday).
Those who are regular readers of this blog will know Ged Fitzgerald from two earlier stories this month when he blocked a request for copies of the nomination papers in the Mayoral election and along with Wirral Council’s Local Returning Officer Eric Robinson classed us as not a “bona fide” media organisation and therefore barred from the Count.
The arrest of Ged Fitzgerald was made as part of Operation Sheridan.
Operation Sheridan is a long-running Lancashire Constabulary corporate corruption investigation.
Matters relating to the Operation Sheridan investigation have been raised at two different Liverpool City Council public meetings.
Each time democratic debate on the issue has been curtailed.
Apologies for stopping comments on this blog post, but it is unknown at this point if Ged Fitzgerald has or will be charged.
Due to Ged Fitzgerald being a high-profile individual, it is believed that the Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division of the Crown Prosecution Service will be working with the Lancashire Constabulary on this matter.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this result with other people.
2 thoughts on “Ged Fitzgerald arrested on suspicion of both conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and witness intimidation”
Further to your previous post john ..just to make clear as I believe .. It is not in the jurisdiction of the employment tribunal to accept or judge assurances by k Robinson or surjit tour monitoring officer , on the running of the pcc election in 2012 or the compilation of the subsequent election claim. the employment tribunal can judge a whistleblowing status as protected but cannot make a judgement on the allegation of the whistleblower …didnt the judge confirm he was not (nor could not) rule on fraud ?
The testimony of Kate Robinson and Surjit Tour were both given under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth etc.
The statements made during the Tribunal (and witness statements) by both Kate Robinson and Surjit Tour related to Alison Mountney’s employment claim before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal ruled that Alison Mountney was classified as a whistleblower and that she had made a protected disclosure.
The whistleblowing claims related to the running of elections, these were elections where Surjit Tour and Kate Robinson had been paid to provide reassurance to the Returning Officer as to the integrity of those elections.
Yes there are other bodies such as the Electoral Commission, Cabinet Office, DCLG etc etc that have a part to play in elections too.
The Employment Tribunal was asked to rule on whether Alison Mountney had suffered detriments as a result of her whistleblowing (to give a few examples such as losing her job, having her post downgraded or being treated differently as a result of her whistleblowing).
There was other evidence in the Employment Tribunal bundle that showed that Wirral Council had commissioned an independent person to look into some of Alison Mountney’s whistleblowing claims. The conclusion of that report was that at least one of the matters she blew the whistle on was upheld.
I did make a written application for a copy of the bundle which unfortunately the Employment Tribunal turned down.
So in answer to your question, the ruling of the Employment Tribunal was that she was a whistleblower and had made a protected disclosure. From the days of the Employment Tribunal I attended it seemed to be acknowledged by witnesses for her employer Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council that there was an acknowledgement that she was a whistleblower and the for want of a better phrase at least some of her whistleblowing claims had been upheld and changes made.
The ruling made on the final day was not of the Employment Judge, but of the whole Employment Tribunal (Employment Judge and two lay members).
There are other ways by which the processes followed by Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council can be challenged such as the audit process, legal processes etc.
Comments are closed.