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/30

 (6) No shouting or swearing

123. There was no persuasive evidence that the DPM shouted at individuals. I also conclude that he did not swear at any individual or swear more generally.

(7) Intention and alleged vindictiveness

124. Some of the Complaints included the contention that the DPM intended to conduct himself in the way that he did. I am sure that this is correct. There was no question on the evidence of him losing control.

125. What was sometimes suggested in the context of the MoJ Additional Complaints was that the DPM is vindictive and intended to harm those to whom his conduct was directed. Ultimately, this was presented as a matter of argument by way of inference from the facts. Although I accept that these views were genuinely held, I do not consider that there is any sound basis for such an allegation. I accept, as the DPM contended, that he is focused on delivery of what he regards as important outcomes and he would have no reason to behave in the vindictive manner alleged. There is, however, one specific allegation of vindictiveness in relation to the FCDO Complaint, which I address below.

(8) The communication of warnings about conduct or the effect of conduct

126. I find that at no stage prior to the investigation did anyone communicate to the DPM in terms that his conduct in relation to civil servants was or might amount to a form of bullying, in that there was no evidence that the word 'bullying' (or any cognate) was ever used in any communication to him. However, as I set out below, there were certain communications which sought to alert the DPM to the existence of an issue as to his behaviour.

127. In the context of the FCDO Complaint, there was a factual dispute as to whether, following a particular meeting at which the DPM referred, in the context of the work of the civil servants present, to the question of their compliance with the Civil Service Code, Sir Philip (the Permanent Secretary) communicated to the DPM that he should not do this. The DPM denied that there had been any such communication. The DPM suggested that, in view of media reporting of the allegations against him (the DPM), Sir Philip was under pressure to explain what he had done in respect of the allegations. The DPM also questioned why there were no minutes of the discussion.