Councillor Satnam Gill OBE has urged that criminal allegations should be handled by the police, not internal council investigations, citing concerns over the threshold for pursuing such cases and the potential for criminal activity to be overlooked.
During a meeting of Islington Council's Audit and Risk Committee on Thursday, March 19, 2026, Councillor Gill expressed his view that if there is an indication of a criminal offence, the decision to proceed should be left to the police. He raised this point during a discussion on the biennial whistleblowing monitoring report, which detailed several allegations that were not pursued due to insufficient evidence for internal action.
Councillor Gill voiced concerns about the risk that criminality is falling between several different pathways
and that the council might be letting things slide because they don't meet an employment-related standard when there may indeed be criminal offences committed.
He also noted a reputational risk to the council
in such scenarios. The discussion further highlighted the risk that this stuff would come back and bite the council sometime in the future that the offender committed, sorry, the alleged offender committed another offence and the police did investigate that and then noticed there had been previous which the council had just said it's not really our business because it's not an HR matter.
The biennial whistleblowing monitoring report, available at LB Islington 2025-26 Whistleblowing Monitoring Report CMT 250226 despatch, revealed that for the period 1 August 2025 to 31 January 2026, there were 4 new referrals. Of these, 1 was closed with allegations not substantiated/unable to pursue. The report also details 5 closed cases from previous periods. Specifically, for WB2 25-26, allegations included Using Council property to facilitate theft and handling stolen goods – lack of evidence, not pursued,
Soliciting prostitution during working hours – lack of evidence, not pursued,
and Misuse of Council vehicle – insufficient detail, not pursued.
These were deemed not pursued due to lack of evidence or insufficient detail, implying they were potentially criminal but not pursued internally.
Paul Clarke, Acting Corporate Director of Resources, explained that disciplinary thresholds are lower than criminality thresholds, and cases are assessed based on the balance of probabilities for HR matters, while police require a higher standard of proof.
He further clarified that if a case does not meet the threshold for HR investigation, it does not automatically mean it is dropped, and HR processes would be followed.
Mr. Clarke also stated that if a case does not meet the threshold for HR investigation, it does not automatically mean it is dropped, and HR processes would be followed.
The discussion also highlighted that if there is evidence of criminality, it would be passed through to work with the police. However, the police would expect the council's professional fraud investigators to have investigated cases first. The evidence sought would be council-owned evidence, such as trackers on council vehicles or CCTV, before passing anything over to the police.
Councillor Janet Burgess MBE raised concerns about a specific case involving allegations of soliciting prostitution
and requested it be revisited. The committee was informed that while the case did not meet the threshold for police referral due to a lack of evidence, it was passed to the council's HR team to consider behavioural issues related to the staff member involved.
The discussion highlighted the differing evidential standards between internal HR investigations and criminal proceedings. Councillor Gill argued that the council should not make decisions on whether an allegation of criminality has sufficient evidence for the police to investigate, as this is the police's remit. He expressed concern that potential criminal offences might be overlooked if they do not meet internal HR standards.
