The Home Affairs president was accused of dishonesty over his and his family’s links to cannabis companies in code of conduct complaints submitted in March.
Interim standards commissioner Andrew Ozanne has not yet published his findings, but Deputy Leadbeater claimed on social media that the investigation had found in his favour.
‘I had two separate code of conduct [complaints] – cleared of both,’ he said.
‘I am told the reports will be published on parliament.gg [the States Assembly’s website] shortly.’
As of yesterday morning, no reports had been published of any complaints considered by the commissioner in 2026, although it was known that Mr Ozanne had determined his findings in an ongoing case and publication was expected any day.
The States members’ code requires them to keep any complaint confidential until it has been determined, unless disclosure has been authorised.
Clearing Deputy Leadbeater would most likely pave the way for another States debate about the future of cannabis laws.
He withdrew a requete earlier this year which could have started the process of cannabis being legalised and regulated locally but said at the time that he hoped to re-present it once Mr Ozanne had concluded the code of conduct complaints against him.
At least one of the complaints of which Deputy Leadbeater claimed to have been cleared was submitted to the commissioner by another deputy, Robert Curgenven, who is himself understood to be under investigation on suspicion of breaching the code in relation to the preparation and submission of his case against Deputy Leadbeater.
Deputy Curgenven accused Deputy Leadbeater of not being open, transparent or honest in an interview with the Guernsey Press in February during which he denied that close family members had a financial interest in the cannabis industry.
At the time, his sister and parents had small shareholdings in the parent company of Bailiwick Botanicals, which was selling hardware to users of medicinal cannabis. He had transferred his own small shareholding in the company to his parents in 2025. His parents also had a minor stake in House of Green, which was previously active in cannabis processing but was then said to be a dormant company.
Deputy Leadbeater insisted that the firms were not in the cannabis industry, denied providing misleading answers during his interview and said he would launch a vigorous defence to clear his name through the code of conduct process.
Deputy Curgenven’s complaint also alleged that Deputy Leadbeater had made a late submission of his declaration of interests in 2025 with the purpose of hiding shareholdings in the companies.
Deputy Leadbeater said he filed his declaration late only because of an administrative error and in any event had completed the share transfers a few weeks before the date by which he was required to declare any interests.
These are not the first code of conduct cases in which Deputies Leadbeater and Curgenven have been involved in the current political term, with former standards commissioner Melissa McCullough dealing with several last year.
She found that the two deputies had separately broken the code’s confidentiality rules by disclosing the existence of an earlier case which she was still investigating, but they escaped sanction. She also found that Deputy Curgenven had broken a section of the code relating to integrity. She dismissed a complaint against Deputy Leadbeater when he argued that calling Deputy Neil Inder a ‘prick’ in an email exchange copied to all deputies was merely an attempt to compare him to a rose bush.
You need to be logged in to comment.