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/36

 E. 

(1) Introduction

149. The circumstances of the FCDO Complaint are such that very few details can be included in the report without involving a breach of confidentiality.

150. The FCDO Complaint is concerned with interactions between the DPM and civil servants. The DPM was Secretary of State for the FCO (subsequently FCDO) between 24 July 2019 and 15 September 2021 (the "FCDO Period").

(2) Findings of fact

151. The FCDO Complaint was submitted on 15 November 2022. Although it concerns events during the FCDO Period, its level of specificity was sufficient to enable the DPM to deal with it fairly. It would have been possible to have made the complaint earlier, although the individual in question was encouraged by line management not to pursue the matter at the time of the events. The investigation in relation to the FCDO Complaint has not been affected in any way by media reporting.

152. The DPM exercised his executive judgment in a particular way, which he was entitled to do as a form of legitimate management choice. The DPM had formed an adverse view as to the way in which civil servants had acted in relation to an ongoing work project. For the purpose of analysis in this report, I have assumed (without so concluding) that the DPM was entitled to form an adverse view, although I should also record that even on this premise there were no grounds for disciplinary action. However, as part of the process towards and implementation of this management choice he acted in a way which was intimidating, in the sense of unreasonably and persistently aggressive in the context of a workplace meeting. His conduct also involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates. In particular, he went beyond what was reasonably necessary in order to give effect to his decision and introduced a punitive element. His conduct was bound to be experienced as undermining or humiliating by the affected individual, and it was so experienced. I infer that the DPM must have been aware of this effect; at the very least, he ought reasonably to have been so aware.

153. In addition, on a separate but closely related occasion concerned with the same subject-matter, the DPM referred to the Civil Service Code in a way which could reasonably