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/21

 (5) Passage of time and lack of earlier complaints

89. The DPM's written representations made two points in this respect which to an extent I accept as well-founded. First, he referred to the length of time that had passed since the events in question and the inevitable effect on the quality of memory and his corresponding ability to respond.

90. This point was of greatest relevance in relation to the DExEU Complaint, given that the events in question related to a period between July and November 2018 and there were no available documents to assist. It was of less relevance to the FCDO Complaint because of the particular circumstances which gave rise to it and the availability of contemporaneous documents, albeit that the distance of over two years between the events and the investigation was bound to have affected the quality of recollection. It was relevant in part in respect of the MoJ Complaints, which concerned the period from September 2021 to September 2022. Some of the allegations in the MoJ Complaints were based on more detailed recollections than others.

91. In this context, it is worth noting that the typical time limit for a claim in the employment tribunal is three months from the date of the matter complained of, albeit that there is a power to extend time in certain cases and a series of events may be treated as ending at its conclusion. The DPM did not take a technical point in this respect, but observed correctly that the time limit in relation to legal proceedings in the employment tribunal provides an indication of the promptness with which the law expects a complaint to be brought forward.

92. Secondly, the DPM drew attention to the lack of any contemporaneous complaint. The DPM argued that the lack of a contemporaneous complaint should be regarded as a strong indication that the conduct was not regarded at the time as giving rise to legitimate grounds for complaint. The extent to which this argument was valid depended on the specifics of each of the Complaints and I therefore deal with it in the context of each of the Complaints. The DPM made a further point, that the allegations comprised in the Complaints were not raised with him at or close to the time of the events with which the allegations are concerned. I accept that point and have acknowledged that the passage of time since the event in question may in certain respects have diminished the DPM's ability to deal with the content of the Complaints.