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/28

 to a suitable, identified individual. He will then operate on the basis that the individual is accountable for the performance of the task in question.

117. In the course of his ministerial work, the DPM often encounters what he genuinely sees as frustrations in respect of the quality of work done, its speed of production and the extent to which it implements his policy decisions. It has not been necessary to make any finding as to whether any of those frustrations was well-founded in any particular case. He prefers to receive papers in a set format so that he can quickly assimilate the information in question. If work is not provided to his satisfaction, he will in general say so. If in the course of a meeting an attendee does not in the DPM's view answer a question in a manner which he regards as direct and straightforward, the DPM will likely interrupt. One of the key questions in relation to the MoJ Complaints and, to a lesser extent, the DExEU Complaint is the extent to which the DPM's style of conducting a meeting, and in particular when frustrated, goes beyond what would normally be regarded as acceptable. I have addressed this question in the context of the relevant Complaints.

118. The DPM often operates on the basis that once he has made a policy decision, it should not be revisited subsequently by civil servants. He refers to this, when it occurs, as 'relitigating his steers'. Views can, however, reasonably differ as to whether an earlier policy decision (or 'steer') was truly final, particularly in light of new or additional circumstances which may arise. Civil servants have a duty to give informed and impartial advice and Ministers have an obligation (under paragraph 5.2 of the Ministerial Code) to consider it.

119. The DPM tends to take a clear view of an issue, whatever it may comprise. This applies across the range of matters with which he deals, from policy decisions to the presentational format of papers. In the context of the investigation, this approach manifested itself in what I considered to be a somewhat absolutist approach in his response to certain points, such as whether a particular conversation had occurred, either at all or in a certain way. His responses were frequently put in 'black or white' terms, with no room for nuance even where nuance might reasonably be expected. I did not find this approach persuasive. However, I have in every instance of factual dispute considered what appeared to me to be the inherent probabilities, the evidence as a whole and the overall context before reaching any conclusion.