Mandatory DBS Checks for District and Parish Councillors: The Russell Tillson Case

In the long shadow of the “Epstein files” debate — where public trust has again been tested by questions about powerful men, elite networks and who knew what — the Russell Tillson case raises a hard local question that councils can no longer dodge. If a man later convicted of historic sex offences could move through public life as a district councillor, town/parish councillor and school governor, is it not time to require proper DBS checks for district and parish councillors too?

This is not about retrospective point-scoring. It is about a live safeguarding gap.

Tillson, a former councillor in this district and beyond, was convicted of historic sex offences and later jailed. Tillson was sentenced at Maidstone Crown Court on 1 September 2023 to five years and eight months, and was also given a 15-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order. It was also reported that he had held a senior role at Tonbridge School and that the offences spanned almost 20 years.

The public record also shows how visible he was in local civic life. The photograph below shows Tillson alongside then Prime Minister Theresa May and former Folkestone & Hythe District Council leader David Monk. Whether one looks at Westminster or a district council chamber, the uncomfortable theme is the same: status and proximity to power can create a false sense of safety.

And there is another detail that sharpens the argument. Kent County Council papers show Tillson listed in a Governor Appointments Panel appendix for Dymchurch Primary School, with the entry naming “Dymchurch Primary School”, “Mr Russell Tillson” and “New Conservative”. That matters because it moves this beyond abstract constitutional theory and into a safeguarding context involving a school.

The case also exposed a second problem: councils’ lack of powers once serious concerns emerge.

Dymchurch Parish Council’s own published statement, after the guilty verdict in June 2023, said it had “no power or authority under British Law to suspend any democratically elected Member from Office for any reason”, and explained that disqualification would depend on sentencing thresholds. New Romney Town Council said much the same, adding that it had no power to suspend and that automatic disqualification would follow if the sentence exceeded three months; it later reported Tillson’s resignation.

Tillson never was an MP

That is the core problem in plain English. The system relies heavily on legal disqualification rules and self-declaration, not active screening.

The Electoral Commission’s guidance makes this clear. Candidates must sign nomination papers confirming they are not disqualified, and the Returning Officer will not confirm for them whether they are disqualified. The guidance also sets out specific disqualifications, including imprisonment thresholds and certain sexual offences notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (with the section 81A local government disqualification applying to relevant notifications/orders made on or after 28 June 2022).

That is better than nothing. But it is not the same as a routine criminal records check.

There has been movement nationally, but not enough. Simon Bailey’s independent review of the disclosure and barring regime recommended mandatory enhanced criminal record checks for councillors in unitary and upper-tier authorities who are being considered for committees deciding children’s services or services for vulnerable adults, with best practice adoption pending legislation. The Government later wrote to councils drawing attention to that recommendation and urging best-practice enhanced DBS checks in those roles.

Important as that is, it does not solve the district and parish question.

District councils and parish/town councils are where many residents first encounter local democracy. Councillors can hold public influence, shape planning decisions, sit in community networks, and build reputations that open doors. In some cases, they also have wider roles in schools, charities and local organisations. If the lesson from a case like this is simply “the law already has disqualification rules”, then local government has learned far too little.

There is, of course, a legal and practical distinction to make. Enhanced DBS checks are role-dependent, and the current national push has focused on councillors in upper-tier safeguarding-related functions. But that is an argument for designing a proper framework — not for doing nothing. At the very least, government and Parliament should now be debating a mandatory baseline for district, parish and town councillors, with clearer rules on eligibility, disclosure, and what happens when serious allegations or convictions arise.

Because the public are entitled to ask a blunt question: if a convicted sex offender could be active in elected office and civic roles, in plain sight, what exactly is the current system protecting?

This article is not claiming that a DBS check would solve every safeguarding failure. It would not. Nor is it suggesting guilt by association because someone appeared in photographs with senior political figures. The point is simpler, and more serious. Public office should not run on trust and reputation alone.

Tillson is now dead. The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman records his death in prison on 25 November 2024. But the safeguarding and governance questions raised by his case are not dead at all.

If anything, they are overdue for all Parish & District Councillors.

The Shepway Vox Team

Dissent is NOT a Crime