Former mayor accused of "stolen valour" breached code of conduct: Sub- committee
A Wolverhampton City councillor breached the authority's code of conduct by falsely claiming to have served as a Royal Marine during a public speech, a sub-committee has found.
- Details
Cllr Greg Brackenridge was accused of "stolen valour" – a term used to describe the act of falsely claiming military service, rank, or decorations – after a speech he made while mayor of the council during the unveiling of a monument commemorating the battle of Saraghari.
During the event in September 2021, he stated that he "served as a Royal Marine".
It was also alleged that he wrongly gave the impression that he had served as a Royal Marine while chairing the council's Armed Forces Covenant Board.
During an Ethics and Governance Sub-Committee meeting late last month (28 July), Cllr Brackenridge said he had spent 30 weeks going through the Royal Marine training process but had to withdraw from it before he completed the training due to personal circumstances.
He explained that the statements he had made were true and that he was sorry if he had misled anyone.
However, Melvin Kenyon, the independent investigator appointed to the complaint, said the councillor should have made it clear that he was a Royal Marine recruit and did not "pass out" and therefore did not serve as a Royal Marine.
The sub-committee ultimately found that on the balance of probability, Cllr Brackenridge was acting in his official capacity when he made the statements and gave the impression of having served in the Royal Marines.
In making those statements, the councillor should have "reasonably foreseen that members of the public and the Armed Forces community might interpret them as implying he had served as a Royal Marine", the committee added.
It also observed that the councillor had "multiple opportunities" during the investigation to engage and present his perspective to the independent investigator, and rejected his claim that concerns over potential media leaks prevented him from participating in the process.
The Sub-Committee concluded that he had not served as a Royal Marine, as he had not completed the training and "passed out" and could not therefore call himself a Royal Marine Commando. They further concluded that he had been a recruit and that it would be misleading and give a false impression for him to state that he had served as a Royal Marine.
As a result, the Sub-Committee concluded that on the balance of probability, the councillor had breached four paragraphs of the Code of Conduct:
- Paragraph 1.1 "I treat other councillors and members of the public with respect." By embellishing his military service, he showed disrespect towards those who have served, been injured and died in military service and towards the families of those military personnel who have lost or otherwise supported those people.
- Paragraph 6.1 "I do not use, or attempt to use, my position improperly to the advantage or disadvantage of myself or anyone else." He embellished his military role and presented himself as having "served as a Royal Marine", when he had not been anything more than a Recruit. He did this to increase his personal stature and to gain political advantage.
- Paragraph 5.1 "I do not bring my role or local authority into disrepute." In undertaking the actions above, it would bring him and the council into disrepute.
- Paragraph 8.2 "I cooperate with any Code of Conduct investigation and/or determination." Councillor Brackenridge did not cooperate with the investigation and the Independent Investigators requests for interviews.
The committee resolved that Cllr Brackenridge should issue a public apology to the Complainant and the Armed Forces Community, and in future, requested that Councillor Brackenridge make it clear that he was a Royal Marine Recruit and not a Royal Marine as he had not passed out.
It also recommended that the leader of the council remove Cllr Brackenridge from the Resources and Equality Scrutiny Panel, given that the council had adopted 'Armed forces' as a locally protected characteristic.
Cllr Brackenridge requested information on the right to appeal during the meeting.
Shamsher Zada, Deputy Monitoring Officer, advised that under the Localism Act 2011, there was no right of appeal against a determination following an Initial Review, Investigation or Hearing. However, if a subject member was unhappy with an outcome, they may wish to seek legal advice about making a judicial review claim through the courts.
It is not yet clear whether Cllr Brackenridge has submitted an appeal.
Adam Carey
Jobs
Police Misconduct & Vetting Solicitor
Locums
Poll
Events
15-09-2025 10:00 am
08-10-2025 10:00 am
Directory
