Loading
The Panel found that he had brought his office and the Council into disrepute, breaching paragraph 6.1(a) of the Members' Code of Conduct. It suspended him as a county councillor for Cardiff for two months. The hearing was held in public.
Some sentences of this summary are missing in English, because an older automatic check removed them from the English only. The Welsh version has them.
There were no apologies for absence
There were no declarations of interest.
The minutes of the 21 April 2026 were approved as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: The Hearings Panel determined unanimously to proceed with the Hearing in public, noting that such matters would ordinarily be an open Hearing and that Cllr Latif’s representations did not raise issues of a sensitive nature which would warrant the matter being heard in private. As there were no further procedural matters and no submission of late evidence, the Panel proceeded to consider findings of fact. Cllr Latif confirmed that he did not dispute the key facts set out in the Investigation Report. As the facts of the case were not in dispute the Chair of the Panel determined to combine Stages 1 and 2 of the procedure (findings of fact and whether a Code of Conduct breach had arisen) and sought representations initially from Mr. Morris and thereafter Cllr Latif. Philip Morris drew attention to the facts, referring to page 39 of the papers, stating that: · The actions of Cllr Latif on 3 June 2024 related to the criminal offence of locking on which is a relatively new offence under the Public Order Act 2023 · When the matter came before the Magistrates Court in May 2025 Cllr Latif pleaded guilty and received a conditional discharge and was ordered to pay costs amounting to £750 and a surcharge of £26 · Cllr Latif continued in his role as Councillor throughout · The incident gave rise to media articles (as referred to in Appendix 9 of the Investigation Report) and Social Media attention (as referred to within Appendix 9, pages 139-162 of the agenda pack). There were mixed views with some comments in support of Cllr Latif’s actions. · The investigation of breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct relates to Paragraph 6.1(a), the duty to not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute, as referred to at Paragraph 8 of the Investigation Report. · When interviewed Cllr Latif had provided a balanced account and had been open in terms of his actions, he’d shown remorse and had made a self-referral to the Ombudsman · The Investigation Report sets out undisputed facts at Paragraph 26-38. One disputed fact was whether Cllr Latif attended the protest as a Councillor. Albeit Paragraph 6.1(a) applies in public as well as in private life, it is submitted that on the facts as Cllr Latif had introduced himself to the police as being a Councillor, that he did attend the protest in his capacity as a Councillor rather than as a private individual. · References made to Paragraph 44 of the Investigation Report, and that Cllr Latif had expressed remorse from the start. · References made to the role and requirement to uphold the law being a key principle to be adhered to by members. · The Panel’s attention was drawn to Paragraph 53 of the Investigation Report which concluded that there was sufficient indication by the Ombudsman that Cllr Latif’s actions were suggestive of a breach of Paragraph 6.1(a) of the Code of Conduct and contrary to the principle that members have a duty to uphold the law. The Hearing Panel discussed the issue of a breach to the Code of Conduct and bringing the Council into disrepute. Cllr Latif openly expressed remorse, explaining that he did plead guilty at the Magistrates court. The Hearing Panel noted the Nolan Principles and paragraph 6.1 a of the Code which stated: You must: Not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably by regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute. Cllr Latif had prepared the following statement: “Thank you for considering my statement. I take my role as a councillor seriously and deeply regret being before you. I offer my sincere and unreserved apology. I recognise the importance of public trust and accept responsibility where I have fallen short. It was never my intention to bring the Council into disrepute, and I have reflected carefully and learned from this experience. I have also completed a refresher course on Standards and Ethics Committee requirements at the beginning of the year to strengthen my understanding and practice. I remain committed to serving my community with integrity. I will also continue to stand firm in my principles, including speaking out for Gaza and Palestine and against oppression wherever it occurs, while ensuring I do so responsibly and in line with the standards expected of my role.” The Hearing Panel had no questions The Hearing Panel adjourned to deliberate in private. The Hearing Panel was re-convened to announce the Panel’s decision. RESOLVED: The Chairman announced that a unanimous decision had been reached by the Panel; that they were satisfied that the facts of the case had been established; and that with regard to whether Cllr Latif had attended the protest in a personal or Councillor capacity, they were satisfied that as he had introduced himself to the Police as a Councillor, he indeed was present at the police station in his capacity as a Councillor. Given the facts, specifically, the public order nature of the offence of locking on, the guilty plea, the conviction and sentence of 18 months conditional discharge, together with £750 costs and surcharge of £26, together with the fact that the Cllr had introduced himself as a Councillor and the media coverage, with headlines referring to him as a Cardiff Councillor, and social media commentary, some of which was negative, and having regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on the Code of Conduct, paragraph 6.1(a) duty, the Panel were satisfied that the Cllr had brought the office of Councillor and the Council into disrepute, and therefore, paragraph 6.1(a) (and the principle of upholding the law underpinning the Code of Conduct) had been breached by Cllr Latif. The Hearing Panel moved on to Stage 3 of the Hearing Procedure to discuss sanctions and invited representations from Mr Morris and Cllr Latif. Mr Morris submitted that there were a number of mitigating factors including remorse shown by Cllr Latif; that he had made a self-referral; that no previous complaints had been received by the Ombudsman’s office against Cllr Latif; and that he had attended refresher training on the Code of Conduct. Cllr Latif submitted that his actions were wrong and the situation could have been avoided; he had definitely learned from the experience; that the outcome that he had wanted to achieve at the police station could have been achieved without locking on and sitting down. There was a lot of noise in the police station and at the time he was ill (and was on sick leave from work). He had heard via social media about the protest and thought he’d be able to help. In future he would not get involved again. Rashpal Singh asked Cllr Latif about his goal/purpose in attending the police station. Cllr Latif explained that he knew a number of Police Officers and he thought that he would be able to calm down and resolve the situation; that as a local councillor he felt that he could open up a channel of communication, however he was wrong as he was only there for forty five minutes, whereas protesters had been there from early afternoon. Cllr Latif said he had hoped his actions could make a difference, but on reflection he now believed that he had over estimated his abilities and had been very ambitious. Louise Evans asked Cllr Latif what the impact had been on him from the reporting of the incident and criminal conviction. Councillor Latif provided a full answer which contained personal information. The Hearing Panel adjourned to consider potential sanctions in private. The Hearing Panel was re-convened to announce the Panel’s decision. RESOLVED: Having regard to the undisputed facts of the case as set out in the Investigation Report, including the seriousness of the criminal offence of locking on pursuant to the Public Order Act 2023 and the sentence issued by the Magistrates Court together with Cllr Latif’s comments during his interview with the Ombudsman’s investigating officer during which Cllr Latif had commented (as set out at page 8 of the Investigation Report) that ”the police officers were in an intense situation” and “the atmosphere was very charged”, the Panel took the view that in that situation, a public office holder would reasonably be expected to act responsibly and lawfully and walk away if necessary. The Panel also considered the sanctions guidance issued by the Adjudication Panel for Wales, noting the seriousness of the breach, and the consequences for the reputation of the Council and the Councillor (having regard to the media headlines referring to him as a Cardiff Councillor and social media commentary on Cllr Latif’s conviction by the Magistrates Court), and the various mitigating factors, as outlined by Mr Morris. Having regard to all of the above, the Panel determined that Cllr Latif be suspended as a County Councillor for the City and County of Cardiff for two months. The Panel noted that a decision notice would be provided to Councillor Latif setting out the reasons for the decision within five working days. The rights of appeal would also be outlined in the decision notice. The Panel noted that an appeal would have to submitted within 21 days. A brief email would be sent to Cllr Latif today, outlining the Panel’s decision.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
The minutes record no declarations of interest.
The council hasn't recorded attendance for this meeting.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.
The Chair of the S&E Hearings Panel, Jason Bartlett outlined how the hearing would proceed. The Chair welcomed Councillor Imran Latif, Mr Philip Morris (of Counsel) and Heather Coutanche (representative from the Ombudsman) The Chair explained there was no late evidence. Cllr Latif requested that the meeting be held in private. He submitted that the nature of the matter was sensitive and that was the reason for the request. Philip Morris requested that the meeting be heard in public which was the usual approach, the agenda was in the public domain and no members of the public were present at the meeting. There had been some media interest, however no members of the press were present. The Hearings Panel adjourned to consider the representations from all parties and take legal advice. The Hearings Panel was re-convened to announce the Panel’s decision. RESOLVED: The Hearings Panel determined unanimously to proceed with the Hearing in public, noting that such matters would ordinarily be an open Hearing and that Cllr Latif’s representations did not raise issues of a sensitive nature which would warrant the matter being heard in private. As there were no further procedural matters and no submission of late evidence, the Panel proceeded to consider findings of fact. Cllr Latif confirmed that he did not dispute the key facts set out in the Investigation Report. As the facts of the case were not in dispute the Chair of the Panel determined to combine Stages 1 and 2 of the procedure (findings of fact and whether a Code of Conduct breach had arisen) and sought representations initially from Mr. Morris and thereafter Cllr Latif. Philip Morris drew attention to the facts, referring to page 39 of the papers, stating that: · The actions of Cllr Latif on 3 June 2024 related to the criminal offence of locking on which is a relatively new offence under the Public Order Act 2023 · When the matter came before the Magistrates Court in May 2025 Cllr Latif pleaded guilty and received a conditional discharge and was ordered to pay costs amounting to £750 and a surcharge of £26 · Cllr Latif continued in his role as Councillor throughout · The incident gave rise to media articles (as referred to in Appendix 9 of the Investigation Report) and Social Media attention (as referred to within Appendix 9, pages 139-162 of the agenda pack). There were mixed views with some comments in support of Cllr Latif’s actions. · The investigation of breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct relates to Paragraph 6.1(a), the duty to not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute, as referred to at Paragraph 8 of the Investigation Report. · When interviewed Cllr Latif had provided a balanced account and had been open in terms of his actions, he’d shown remorse and had made a self-referral to the Ombudsman · The Investigation Report sets out undisputed facts at Paragraph 26-38. One disputed fact was whether Cllr Latif attended the protest as a Councillor. Albeit Paragraph 6.1(a) applies in public as well as in private life, it is submitted that on the facts as Cllr Latif had introduced himself to the police as being a Councillor, that he did attend the protest in his capacity as a Councillor rather than as a private individual. · References made to Paragraph 44 of the Investigation Report, and that Cllr Latif had expressed remorse from the start. · References made to the role and requirement to uphold the law being a key principle to be adhered to by members. · The Panel’s attention was drawn to Paragraph 53 of the Investigation Report which concluded that there was sufficient indication by the Ombudsman that Cllr Latif’s actions were suggestive of a breach of Paragraph 6.1(a) of the Code of Conduct and contrary to the principle that members have a duty to uphold the law. The Hearing Panel discussed the issue of a breach to the Code of Conduct and bringing the Council into disrepute. Cllr Latif openly expressed remorse, explaining that he did plead guilty at the Magistrates court. The Hearing Panel noted the Nolan Principles and paragraph 6.1 a of the Code which stated: You must: Not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably by regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute. Cllr Latif had prepared the following statement: “Thank you for considering my statement. I take my role as a councillor seriously and deeply regret being before you. I offer my sincere and unreserved apology. I recognise the importance of public trust and accept responsibility where I have fallen short. It was never my intention to bring the Council into disrepute, and I have reflected carefully and learned from this experience. I have also completed a refresher course on Standards and Ethics Committee requirements at the beginning of the year to strengthen my understanding and practice. I remain committed to serving my community with integrity. I will also continue to stand firm in my principles, including speaking out for Gaza and Palestine and against oppression wherever it occurs, while ensuring I do so responsibly and in line with the standards expected of my role.” The Hearing Panel had no questions The Hearing Panel adjourned to deliberate in private. The Hearing Panel was re-convened to announce the Panel’s decision. RESOLVED: The Chairman announced that a unanimous decision had been reached by the Panel; that they were satisfied that the facts of the case had been established; and that with regard to whether Cllr Latif had attended the protest in a personal or Councillor capacity, they were satisfied that as he had introduced himself to the Police as a Councillor, he indeed was present at the police station in his capacity as a Councillor. Given the facts, specifically, the public order nature of the offence of locking on, the guilty plea, the conviction and sentence of 18 months conditional discharge, together with £750 costs and surcharge of £26, together with the fact that the Cllr had introduced himself as a Councillor and the media coverage, with headlines referring to him as a Cardiff Councillor, and social media commentary, some of which was negative, and having regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on the Code of Conduct, paragraph 6.1(a) duty, the Panel were satisfied that the Cllr had brought the office of Councillor and the Council into disrepute, and therefore, paragraph 6.1(a) (and the principle of upholding the law underpinning the Code of Conduct) had been breached by Cllr Latif. The Hearing Panel moved on to Stage 3 of the Hearing Procedure to discuss sanctions and invited representations from Mr Morris and Cllr Latif. Mr Morris submitted that there were a number of mitigating factors including remorse shown by Cllr Latif; that he had made a self-referral; that no previous complaints had been received by the Ombudsman’s office against Cllr Latif; and that he had attended refresher training on the Code of Conduct. Cllr Latif submitted that his actions were wrong and the situation could have been avoided; he had definitely learned from the experience; that the outcome that he had wanted to achieve at the police station could have been achieved without locking on and sitting down. There was a lot of noise in the police station and at the time he was ill (and was on sick leave from work). He had heard via social media about the protest and thought he’d be able to help. In future he would not get involved again. Rashpal Singh asked Cllr Latif about his goal/purpose in attending the police station. Cllr Latif explained that he knew a number of Police Officers and he thought that he would be able to calm down and resolve the situation; that as a local councillor he felt that he could open up a channel of communication, however he was wrong as he was only there for forty five minutes, whereas protesters had been there from early afternoon. Cllr Latif said he had hoped his actions could make a difference, but on reflection he now believed that he had over estimated his abilities and had been very ambitious. Louise Evans asked Cllr Latif what the impact had been on him from the reporting of the incident and criminal conviction. Councillor Latif provided a full answer which contained personal information. The Hearing Panel adjourned to consider potential sanctions in private. The Hearing Panel was re-convened to announce the Panel’s decision. RESOLVED: Having regard to the undisputed facts of the case as set out in the Investigation Report, including the seriousness of the criminal offence of locking on pursuant to the Public Order Act 2023 and the sentence issued by the Magistrates Court together with Cllr Latif’s comments during his interview with the Ombudsman’s investigating officer during which Cllr Latif had commented (as set out at page 8 of the Investigation Report) that ”the police officers were in an intense situation” and “the atmosphere was very charged”, the Panel took the view that in that situation, a public office holder would reasonably be expected to act responsibly and lawfully and walk away if necessary. The Panel also considered the sanctions guidance issued by the Adjudication Panel for Wales, noting the seriousness of the breach, and the consequences for the reputation of the Council and the Councillor (having regard to the media headlines referring to him as a Cardiff Councillor and social media commentary on Cllr Latif’s conviction by the Magistrates Court), and the various mitigating factors, as outlined by Mr Morris. Having regard to all of the above, the Panel determined that Cllr Latif be suspended as a County Councillor for the City and County of Cardiff for two months. The Panel noted that a decision notice would be provided to Councillor Latif setting out the reasons for the decision within five working days. The rights of appeal would also be outlined in the decision notice. The Panel noted that an appeal would have to submitted within 21 days. A brief email would be sent to Cllr Latif today, outlining the Panel’s decision.