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/9

 in this process and is similarly important to ensure that others are not deterred from raising issues in the future.

37. Confidentiality was therefore required of and agreed by all participants in the investigation, both during the process and thereafter. It covers both the identities of those involved (save of course for the DPM himself) and the content of all the information provided to me.

38. It was of course necessary for me to use the information provided for the purpose of the investigation, which included putting it to others on an attributable basis for a response or comment and, ultimately, reporting to the Prime Minister. However, that did not–and should not–mean a public loss of confidentiality.

39. Every individual (other than the DPM) who contributed to the investigation did so on this basis. I made it clear to all concerned that I would need to consider carefully, in light of the evidence as a whole, whether it was necessary to identify individuals in my report. With only two exceptions, namely Sir Philip Barton and Antonia Romeo, I have concluded that it is not necessary to do so. The two individuals concerned both understood throughout their involvement in the investigation that it was more likely than not that they would be named in the report. They have been given the opportunity to comment on those sections of the report which refer to them, only for the purpose of ensuring that the loss of confidentiality is no greater than necessary.

40. In accordance with this approach to confidentiality, I have sought to avoid including in my report any fact which could lead directly or indirectly to the identification of any person (other than the two individuals mentioned and the DPM). In my sections on fact-finding, I have therefore avoided the inclusion of any details which would enable such identification. For the same reason, albeit at the risk of some loss of grammatical precision, I have used the pronouns "they" or "their" when referring to particular individuals to avoid the inclusion of a hint as to a person's identity.

41. This approach to confidentiality means that the report is not as factually detailed as it might otherwise have been; that is in my view the correct outcome. The public interest in maintaining the principle of confidentiality, in this instance and for future investigations of this nature, hugely outweighs any interest that anyone may have in the full extent of the factual detail. In reaching my findings of fact, I have of course