Council says ‘blurred lines’ made it impossible to determine whether Aontú councillor acted inappropriately towards woman

By Simon Bourke, Wexford People

Wexford County Council (WCC) has said it is not in a position to “substantiate the claims” made by a woman who has accused a local councillor of inappropriate behaviour in his car in 2024.

Arguing that "their lines became blurred” during a meeting between Councillor Jim Codd and Ms Rachel Meadows in Carrig-on-Bannow on August 17, 2024, the chief executive of WCC, Mr Eddie Taaffe, and cathaoirleach Councillor Joe Sullivan, recommended that a formal reminder of the code of the conduct be sent to Cllr Codd following the incident.

A complaint was made to WCC on November 26, 2024, by a Ms Rachel Meadows regarding the conduct of the Aontú councillor in which she alleged that, during a meeting to discuss her ongoing housing issues, Cllr Codd drove her to Bannow Island where he proceeded to grab her “with his right hand”, “pulling her towards him”, and, that when she pushed him off, “he grabbed her again”. At this point Cllr Codd is alleged to have said “Oh come on”, to which Ms Meadows replied, “I’m not here for that Jim” and he said, “I can’t believe I can’t seduce you in beautiful Carrig-on-Bannow”

While Cllr Codd has accepted that he and Ms Meadows drove to Bannow Island that evening and that he made advances towards her, he told an independent investigator that he did so in the “gentlest way” and was subsequently “rebuffed”.

WCC hired an independent investigator, Ms Michelle O'Halloran, to formally examine the complaint made by Ms Meadows and determine whether Cllr Codd’s actions had constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct for Councillors. While the matter was also reported to gardaí by Ms Meadows, the director of public prosecutions (DPP) decided there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute a criminal case in this instance”. However, that did not nullify the investigation under the Council’s Code of Conduct.

In her report, Ms O’Halloran explained that “there is a difference between the standard of evidence required for the DPP to prosecute a criminal case (the standard is that the evidence needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a crime has occurred) and the standard that we apply in investigations under the Council’s Code of Conduct or a workplace investigation, which is to establish on the balance of reasonable probability what occurred”.

During her investigation of the alleged incident, Ms O’Halloran met with both parties where she interviewed them about the night in question. A key factor in her investigation was to determine whether the incident occurred while Cllr Codd was on private business or while performing his duties as an elected councillor.

In the report, Ms O’Halloran states: “I find that Ms Meadows was put in a position where she thought she was meeting a friendly public official who appeared to want to meet her out of concern for a local issue, when in fact he was pursuing a personal agenda that he did not make her aware of. This, in my opinion, raises a question about the conduct of Cllr Codd, a public official, in his engagement with a local constituent.

"He may have thought he was ‘off duty’ and on a very personal appointment/date, but I do not find sufficient evidence to suggest he could assume Ms Meadows was on the same page as him.”

The meeting between Ms Meadows and Cllr Codd, which took place in Colfer’s Pub in Carrig-on-Bannow, had been arranged via text after the two parties had struck up a conversation at a public event held in Wexford town. Following that initial introduction, Cllr Codd and Ms Meadows had begun conversing via text for a number of weeks before their meeting in Colfer's at 5.45 p.m. on August 17.

“I find that Cllr Codd’s assertion that this incident falls outside the scope of the Council’s Code of Conduct, because he believes it had nothing to do with his role as an elected councillor, and he was on private business, to be incorrect.” said Ms O’Halloran. “All of his conversations with Ms Meadows, while friendly and informal — including the reason for meeting up on August 17, 2024 — focused on politics and local issues where their interests aligned.

“Given the analysis above, I find it credible that Ms Meadows met with Cllr Codd intending to discuss these political issues further, albeit in an informal location."

Citing texts sent by Ms Meadows following the meeting, in which the complainant said she felt “enraged” by Cllr Codd’s “audacity” and still had a bruise on her arm from the encounter, Ms O’Halloran continued: "I believe that these texts, sent a couple of hours after the encounter in Bannow Strand, make Ms Meadows’ position abundantly clear,” she said. “I believe, on the balance of probability, that it is very unlikely she would have sent these texts that night if she had just finished enjoying an evening of mutually consenting passion and romance.”

Cllr Codd denied Ms Meadows’ accusation and said it had been thoroughly investigated by Wexford Garda.

In her conclusion, Ms O’Halloran states that "Cllr Codd did not seek or receive consent from Ms Meadows for making repeated intimate sexual advances on her, at a meeting that she understood she was having with a friendly public official to talk about issues of concern to her, albeit in an informal location,” and “as such Cllr Codd has a case to answer that he failed to abide by the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, in particular that he failed to ‘Act in a way that enhances public trust and confidence’.”

In their response to the report, the chief executive of WCC, Mr Eddie Taaffe, and cathaoirleach, Councillor Joe Sullivan, said there were two aspects to consider.

The first of these asked whether it was possible to establish, on “the balance of reasonable probability”, what occurred in the interaction between the complainant, Ms. Meadows, and the respondent, Councillor Codd, on August 17, 2024.

"Both Ms. Meadows and Councillor Codd have been consistent in their retelling of the events, as they recall them, of the evening of August 17,” they said. “However, given the complete absence of any independent witnesses or evidence to substantiate any claims or allegations it is impossible to conclude with any degree of confidence as to the events of the evening in question. While Ms. Meadows text messages following the event convey her version of events, we believe that no inference of acceptance of these events by Councillor Codd should be construed from the fact that he did not reply to these messages.”

Secondly, Mr Taaffe and Cllr Sullivan sought to determine whether the events occured in “the course of Councillor Codd's role as a Councillor, thereby coming within the remit of the Code of Conduct for Councillors”.

“Ms Meadows believes she was meeting her local councillor to discuss housing and other issues and that this was essentially council business, albeit informally,” read their response. “Councillor Codd has re-iterated on numerous occasions that the interactions were not in the context of Councillor/Constituent business and therefore the Code of Conduct does not apply, as this was, in effect, a private matter between two adults.

“Councillor Codd believes he was meeting Ms. Meadows in a social capacity at a local pub where they would discuss local issues of mutual interest. Somewhere during the course of the evening, their lines became blurred as they went for a drive to a scenic spot where the alleged encounter took place. It becomes obvious at this point that Ms. Meadows and Councillor Codd may have had differing expectations for the evening."

In conclusion Mr Taaffe and Cllr Sullivan said “it is not possible to conclude with any degree of confidence that the interaction fell within Councillor Codd's role as a Councillor and was consequently a private interaction. Therefore, we are not in a position to substantiate the claims and determine that there has been a breach of the code of conduct. In addition, the complaint refers to an alleged single isolated incident and there has been virtually no contact, as we understand it, between both parties since the events in question.”

“We are of the opinion that the most appropriate course of action is to write to the Councillor and formally remind them of the provisions of the Code of Conduct for Councillors.”