Page:Formal Complaints about the Conduct of The Right Honourable Dominic Raab MP, Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor, and Secretary of State for Justice.pdf/19

 the DExEU Complaint and the MoJ Additional Complaints, I was asked to establish the specific facts surrounding the complaints.

83. In his written representations, the DPM contended that the Terms of Reference were limited to the MoJ Group Complaint, the FCDO Complaint and the DExEU Complaint and that if I were to make factual findings in relation to any other matter, that would go beyond the authorised scope of the investigation. Although not stated in terms, the necessary implication was that the MoJ Additional Complaints were outside the Terms of Reference. The DPM's written representations went on to submit that if any matter other than the MoJ Group Complaint, the FCDO Complaint and the DExEU Complaint were to form the basis of findings, that would risk unfairness on the basis of a significant change in the Terms of Reference which was not notified to him.

84. I do not accept these representations about the scope of the Terms of Reference. I notified the DPM on 30 November 2022 that I would establish the specific facts in relation to the DExEU Complaint. Following the Prime Minister's decision on 13 December 2022, I wrote again the following day to inform the DPM that the MoJ Additional Complaints were to be investigated under the Terms of Reference. I stated: "As the current Terms of Reference allow me to consider this material, they do not need to be amended for this purpose". I made the same point in the course of my first interview with the DPM (about the DExEU Complaint). The DPM did not prior to his written representations suggest that it was unacceptable for me to investigate and find specific facts in relation to the MoJ Additional Complaints. I wrote to the DPM on 6 March 2023, including copies of all of the MoJ Additional Complaints and also including in the written summary the additional material that I had obtained during the investigation and to which the DPM's response was sought. I did not detect in the DPM's treatment at interview of the MoJ Additional Complaints any lack of attention to detail. Accordingly, I do not consider that there is or has been any unfairness in this respect.

85. I do, however, accept that there is a difference of principle between an allegation made by an individual who is a party to one of the Complaints and an allegation made by an individual who participated in the investigation only as a witness. The latter type of material had the potential to assist in relation to the presence or absence of any pattern in respect of the conduct alleged. But if such material was inconclusive or did not in