London Authority and Barking and Dagenham council concluded that Barnbrook had brought "his office and the respective authorities into disrepute" as a result of the interview. A hearing held by the standards committees of both the assembly and council was adjourned on 21 July 2009 when Barnbrook failed to appear, after being given sick leave on grounds of stress. He had also failed to provide written evidence. On 24 September 2009, Barnbrook was suspended for one month from Barking and Dagenham Council for bringing it into disrepute. Barnbrook said he had made "unintentional inaccuracies" in the interview on knife crime due to his dyslexia and background noise. He subsequently posted an apology on his blog which stated: "I apologise for giving out this information based on anecdotal reports and thereafter for not ensuring that the videos were removed or at least amended, once I knew the information to be incorrect. I have a passionate interest in the scourge of knife-crime which affects our whole community and will continue to speak out on the issue. I have no wish, however, to stoke fear of crime and realise the importance of conveying accurate information. I will seek to work far more closely with the Police and other agencies in future to ensure that I am able to do this". Barnbrook appealed against the outcome of the earlier hearings. He was represented by Patrick Harrington (the General Secretary of Solidarity – The Union for British Workers, acting in a personal capacity) at the appeal and Mr James Goudie QC acted for the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham. The appeal was heard on 21 January 2010 and the decision announced on 18 February 2010. At the hearing, Harrington made a number of submissions on behalf of the appellant. Two cases were cited:- Mullaney –v- The Adjudication Panel for England [2009] EWHC 72 (Admin) and Livingstone -v- The Adjudication Panel for England [2006] EWHC 2533 (Admin). Harrington's key argument was that Barnbrook at any one time wears three hats: the first for his political position within the BNP, the second as Assembly member for the GLA, and the third of LBBD Councillor. Sometimes the boundaries between these three functions became blurred, according to Harrington. In relation to the video the appellant was not acting in his capacity as a councillor. When Barnbrook made reference to Barking and Dagenham it was by way of an