A journalist was barred from covering a council meeting about alleged political gerrymandering which had been called due to his own investigation into the issue.

Charles Thomson, Archant’s investigations reporter for London and Hertfordshire, was denied access to a meeting of a panel which had been assembled to determine whether Havering Council leader Damian White should face an investigation over an alleged attempt to manipulate the borough’s electoral boundaries for political gain.

HTFP reported in August how the council had launched an investigation into the matter after the Romford Recorder was leaked a tape recording made secretly in a Conservative group meeting, in which Councillor White was heard saying those involved had “come up with a set of proposals that I think are really politically advantageous for us” and claimed the authority’s chief executive had allowed him to influence the authority’s proposals.

The Recorder has now reported it was banned from addressing a meeting of the panel charged with looking into the matter on Thursday, while opposition councillors found their cameras and microphones had been switched off remotely by council officers to prevent them from interjecting.

According to the Recorder, the panel voted to eject all press and public and the live feed of the meeting, which was being held via Zoom, was cut.

Sources who did have access to the meeting later revealed to the newspaper that Conservative councillors had “voted behind closed doors to ignore expert advice and block any further investigation into their leader”.

Charles, pictured, told HTFP: “When the first panel was scheduled for 1 October, the agenda said the meeting would go into private because councillors might consider ‘exempt information’. I applied in writing to challenge that proposal.

“All of the evidence councillors were due to consider had been published in full. None was exempted or redacted.

“So in my email asking to address the meeting, I questioned why councillors would be discussing evidence not included in the case files presented to them.

“I also cited overwhelming public interest, and the risk of damaging trust in the council in the middle of a pandemic.”

Charles had received no response to his request by the time the first meeting began, but it was adjourned anyway after a councillor declared an interest.

He added: “Ahead of the second meeting, though, I was informed that the chairman had decided we could not challenge the proposal to go into private.

“Accordingly, when the second meeting began, councillors voted to exclude the public and the feed was cut.

“However, sources who did have access to the meeting made sure we knew the key information about what occurred and we were able to report the outcome within about an hour of it occurring.

“My understanding is that the story is not over and other avenues of complaint or challenge are being investigated, so we will be paying close attention to any further developments.”

A Havering Council spokesman said: “On 15 October 2020, the Adjudication and Review Assessment Panel decided that the complaints did not merit further investigation and therefore were dismissed.

“A motion was presented that the allegations before the Panel did not merit further investigation and to dismiss them pursuant to paragraph 4.4(g) of Part 5.2 of Havering Council’s Constitution (Arrangements for dealing with allegations that a Member or a Co-opted member of the London Borough of Havering has failed to comply with the Members’ Code of Conduct).

“Amongst other powers available, Adjudication and Review Assessment Panels can pursuant to paragraph 4.4(g) dismiss allegations where the matters to which the allegation refers took place longer than three months before the date of receipt of the allegation and there are no exceptional circumstances which merit the investigation of matters outside that timescale.

“After debate, the motion was carried by a majority of two votes to one. This outcome concludes the process for considering complaints.”