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/43

 :(10) A further similar example is that the DPM made a point of requiring a meeting with a policy official for the sole purpose of criticising them for their team's failure to deliver a submission on time and without having requested in advance any extension. There was no underlying urgency. For the individual in question, the experience was humiliating and upsetting.


 * (11) In relation to the subject of undue interrupting, which featured in all of the MoJ Additional Complaints, most of the experiences described are likely to be attributable to the DPM's approach to preparation and his desire to use the time in a meeting in as focused and effective a manner as possible. He is typically not prepared to sit passively while attendees make a point that he has already understood or repeat the content of a paper that he has absorbed. He generally demands that his questions be answered in a manner which he regards as direct and straightforward. I do not regard the criticism of this part of the DPM's method of working as itself indicative of behaviour that was 'intimidating' or 'insulting'. However, individuals who had previously experienced the DPM express an unconstructive criticism of their work (and probably understood it as a criticism of them personally) might reasonably have interpreted a series of interruptions as a form of implicit criticism. The combination of explicit unconstructive criticism and frequent interrupting may have a cumulative effect as a form of intimidating or insulting behaviour.


 * (12) The individuals involved in the MoJ Additional Complaints experienced a range of impacts, including stress and anxiety, the taking of special unpaid leave, and in one case a period of stress-related sick leave. Although they said – and genuinely believed – that these impacts were attributable to the DPM's conduct, in view of the available evidence it was not possible for me to make a finding about cause and effect.


 * (13) The DPM was not aware, nor could he reasonably have been aware, of the impact on individuals in terms of what are said to have been the effects on psychological health. He was aware of the case of the individual who took stress-related sick leave, but it was not suggested that he knew or should have known that they attributed that to the DPM. There is otherwise no suggestion that any similar impact was brought to his attention.