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/25

 C. 

(1) Introduction

102. I have in this section set out as many generally applicable findings of fact as possible, without thereby disclosing, or risking the disclosure, of confidential information. I acknowledge the difficulty for participants, many of whom went to considerable effort to assist the investigation and some of whom were taking a risk in respect of their careers.

103. I have concluded that it is necessary to include details of evidence provided by two individuals (Sir Philip Barton and Antonia Romeo) because the findings were sufficiently important and there was no practicable means of making those findings public without disclosure of their identities. Those individuals have been given the opportunity to comment on the content of the report only in so far as it referred to them and only for the purpose of ensuring that the release of confidential information went no further than necessary.

(2) The timing of the Complaints

104. The MoJ Group Complaint had in substance been communicated within the MoJ in early March 2022. It was not treated as having been made pursuant to any particular procedure. Steps were taken internally within the MoJ to address the content of the MoJ Group Complaint. The MoJ Group Complaint was not put to the DPM in March 2022 and there is no evidence to suggest that he was shown a copy of it. It was released to the media and many of the allegations were made public in November 2022.

105. The MoJ Group Complaint, once treated as a formal complaint in November 2022 and this investigation had been commissioned, led directly to the making of the MoJ Additional Complaints. The MoJ Additional Complaints could have been made earlier, although that timing did not make a material difference to their cogency or the DPM's ability to address them.

106. The FCDO Complaint was also made in view of the media reporting about the MoJ Group Complaint. The specific nature of the circumstances of the FCDO Complaint meant that the passage of time did not materially diminish the DPM's ability to respond. However, other matters which arose in the course of the investigation into the FCDO