Commonwealth Games official’s ‘uncomfortable behaviour’ with volunteer

A “prominent” Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) official has been found to have breached its ethics code after a claim that they “spent an inordinate amount of time with a volunteer of the opposite sex” at a social event related to CGF business.

In a decision published on the CGF’s website, the chair of an ethics commission panel states that the unnamed individual admitted allegations that they “failed to act with the highest standards of integrity”.

The official – referred to only as ‘AB’ – is also said to have accepted acting “in such a way as to give the appearance of impropriety [and] to have the potential to bring the Commonwealth Games into disrepute”.

The CGF revealed that in October 2024, a senior CGF figure received a report that ‘AB’ “may not have acted with the appropriate level of ethical conduct whilst performing a CGF related role”.

AB is described as “prominent in the Commonwealth Games Federation”.

An investigation was then conducted by an unnamed London-based lawyer, referred to in the published decision as ‘CD’, who acted as an ethics officer in the case, and charged the official in February.

Their report “included a summary and analysis of a first-person witness to the alleged unethical conduct”.

“The report documents that AB, while at a social event related to CGF business, spent an inordinate amount of time with a volunteer of the opposite sex,” the CGF added.

“The first-person witnesses were uncomfortable with AB’s behaviour…It is clear these witnesses had concerns about the potential to bring the CGF and/or CGF Officials into disrepute, to the extent that they took photographs of AB with the volunteer.”

The ethics commission chair noted that the official insisted “nothing inappropriate happened at the event”, and “states that they have agreed to the allegations and acceded to the proposed sanction to allow the Ethics Commission to hear the matter with a chair as a single person panel”.

However, the chair also concluded that “the evidence before me indicates that AB’s actions denigrated the perception of the integrity, of the potential for the appearance of impropriety, and the possibility of bringing the image of the Commonwealth Games into disrepute”.

In an intriguing twist, the panel chair also claimed that the official suggested to the lawyer that they “should mitigate the sanctions” and that the lawyer acted inappropriately by proposing modified sanctions after the charges were initially delivered, giving the official “opinions or advice that goes well beyond the Ethics Officer role of providing information”.

“I have further determined that CD has, in effect, conducted what would be characterised as plea bargaining with AB, after AB had received the Notice of Charge” said the chair. “I find this to be highly inappropriate.

“CD should not have made any modifications to the charges or the sanctions, as that is in the sole purview of the Ethic Commission at a hearing, and only after a hearing is requested by the covered person.”

The chair also revealed that they rejected a suggestion by the reprimanded official to not publicly disclose the outcome of the case, stating that “not disclosing the decision could create a reputational risk for the CGF and possibly subject it to allegations of cover up.”

However, the chair said that they have chosen not to reveal the individual’s identity because based on the investigation, “no harm was done to any person, there does not appear to be any risk of harm towards any person or persons”.

They also noted that “AB is not the subject of a provisional or sanctioned suspension or expulsion where their identity must be provided in order to ensure compliance; and that the sanctions proposed by CD and accepted by AB are on the less severe end of sanctions spectrum”.

It is also noted that the decision “shall be posted on the Commonwealth Games Website under the relevant section concerning the Ethics Commission, and shall not be posted on the ‘News’ feed. The decision will be posted for a period of 28 days only”.