SUMMARY
So I've just read the 48 page 20th April 2023 investigative report by Adam Tolley, (AT), KC on eight complaints about Dominic Raab, (DR), bullying various people. In the investigative process 66 interviews were held, mostly in person and some by video conference. AT conducted all of the interviews himself.
The report concludes that on two of the complaints DR's conduct fits the definition of bullying. As DR undertook to resign, if the investigation found bullying, then he has resigned. However his resignation letter says the findings of bullying are flawed and set the threshold for finding bullying too low..
On DR's conduct as Secretary of State at the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office, the report concludes that DR acted in a way which was intimidating and which involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates. It goes on to state that, at the very least, DR should have been aware that this would be the effect of his conduct.
On DR's conduct as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, the report concludes that the composition and content of the two omplaints make them unsuitable as a basis for any findings about DR's conduct. However the report does comment that DR has been able to regulate his level of ‘abrasiveness’ since the announcement of the investigation and that he should have altered his approach earlier.
The report's findings are plainly dependent on the defintion of bullying it uses which is in paragrpah 175 of the report. In summary that paragraph says bullying is "Offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour; or Abuse or misuse of power in ways that undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient."
In DR's written representations to the investigation he made various points concerning the definition of bullying, and in the report AT states that he has "made findings of fact with the DPM’s representation in mind".
A BIT MORE DETAIL
Paragraph 175 of the report says that, "for the purpose of this investigation under the Ministerial Code, conduct would fall within the description of ‘bullying’ if it can be characterised as:
(1) Offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour; or
(2) Abuse or misuse of power in ways that undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient."
Paragraph 176 of the report summarises what AT has found as follows.
The DExEU Complaint - DR's conduct as Secretary of State at the Department for Exiting the European Union. DR's conduct can't be characterised as offensive, malicious or insulting. It was experienced as intimidating but AT couldn't make a finding as to whether it was in fact intimidating. There was no evidence to suggest any abuse or misuse of power.
The FCDO Complaint - DR's conduct as Secretary of State at the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office.
In DR's genuine, adverse view about the work of others DR acted in a way which was intimidating, in the sense of unreasonably and persistently aggressive conduct in the context of a work meeting. It also involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates. DR introduced an unwarranted punitive element. His conduct was experienced as undermining or humiliating by the affected individual, which was inevitable. It is to be inferred that DR was aware that this would be the effect of his conduct; at the very least, he should have been aware
On a separate occasion, DR referred to the Civil Service Code in a way which could reasonably have been understood as suggesting that those involved had acted in breach. This had a significant adverse effect on a particular individual who took it seriously. DR's conduct was a form of intimidating behaviour, in the sense of conveying a threat of unspecified disciplinary action, and was experienced as such. He ought to have realised that his reference to the Civil Service Code could well have been understood as a threat.
The MoJ Complaints - DR's conduct as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice. The composition and content of these complaints make them unsuitable as a basis for any findings about DR's conduct.
DR's conduct during the MoJ Period was sometimes ‘abrasive’, in the sense of a personal style which is or feels intimidating or insulting to the individual, but is not intended to be so. His conduct was not, however, ‘abusive’, in the sense of behaviour which is intended and specifically targeted. DR has been able to regulate this level of ‘abrasiveness’ since the announcement of the investigation. He should have altered his approach earlier.
No comments:
Post a Comment