And Raab is...

A. INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
(1) Overview
1. This report is the product of my investigation into the facts surrounding the formal complaints made about the conduct of the Right Honourable Dominic Raab MP, Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (the “DPM”). The report sets out, to the extent consistent with upholding the important principle of confidentiality, my findings of fact. In the interest of transparency, it also addresses the process which I adopted and my approach to evidence, including the representations made by the DPM.

2. The investigation was conducted on the basis of the confidentiality of the identity of those who participated as witnesses. As a result, it has been possible only to include the most general reference to the factual detail in order to avoid identification or the risk of identification.

3. It is important, for a proper understanding of its content, to read the report as a whole.

(2) The Terms of Reference and the Complaints(2) The Terms of Reference and the Complaints

4. On 23 November 2022 the Prime Minister appointed me as an independent investigator in respect of what were then two formal complaints about the conduct of the DPM. The appointment was made pursuant to published Terms of Reference1 (the “Terms of Reference”).

5. The Terms of Reference state as follows:
The Prime Minister has appointed Adam Tolley KC to conduct an independent investigation into two formal complaints which have been made about the conduct of the Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP, the Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice.
As an independent investigator, Adam Tolley KC has been asked to:
a. establish the specific facts surrounding the formal complaint made on 15 November about Mr Raab’s conduct at the Ministry of Justice;

b. establish the specific facts surrounding the formal complaint made on 15 November about Mr Raab’s conduct at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
    Information provided to the investigator is provided in confidence.
    The investigation should be completed as swiftly as possible and the investigator will proceed on that basis.
    The investigation will be undertaken by Adam Tolley KC with support from officials in the Cabinet Office. Those officials will work under the direction of the investigator and in line with the Civil Service Code.
    The independent investigator will report to the Prime Minister on his investigation.
    As set out in the Ministerial Code, the Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.
    The report of the investigation will be made public.
    These Terms of Reference may be updated at the discretion of the Prime Minister, in consultation with the investigator.

G. CONCLUSION
174. As I said at the outset, this report is the product of my investigation into the facts surrounding the Complaints. It states, to the extent consistent with upholding the principle of confidentiality, my findings of fact. I reiterate the importance, for a proper understanding of the subject-matter, of reading the report as a whole.

175. As set out in paragraphs 53 and 57 above, for the purpose of this investigation under the Ministerial Code, conduct would fall within the description of ‘bullying’ if it can be characterised as:
(1) Offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour; or
(2) Abuse or misuse of power in ways that undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient17.

176. In summary, I have found as follows:
(1) In relation to the DExEU Complaint:

    (a) The DPM’s conduct cannot be characterised as offensive, malicious or insulting. It was experienced as intimidating, in the sense of excessively demanding. I could not make a finding as to whether it was in fact intimidating in this sense.     There was no evidence to suggest any abuse or misuse of power.
    (b) The DPM did not intend any adverse effect on others.
    (c) No-one drew to the DPM’s attention that his conduct was in any way problematic.
    (d) He did not know and could not reasonably have been aware of what is said to have been the impact of his conduct on certain individuals.

(2) In relation to the FCDO Complaint:
    (a) The DPM made a legitimate management choice, on the basis of his genuine, adverse view about the work of others (albeit without any grounds for disciplinary action).

    (b) In reaching and implementing this management choice he acted in a way which was intimidating, in the sense of unreasonably and persistently aggressive conduct in the context of a work meeting. It also involved an abuse or misuse of     power in a way that undermines or humiliates. He introduced an unwarranted punitive element. His conduct was experienced as undermining or humiliating by the affected individual, which was inevitable. It is to be inferred that the DPM was     aware that this would be the effect of his conduct; at the very least, he should have been aware.

    (c) On a separate occasion, the DPM referred to the Civil Service Code in a way which could reasonably have been understood as suggesting that those involved had acted in breach. This had a significant adverse effect on a particular     individual who took it seriously. The DPM’s conduct was a form of intimidating behaviour, in the sense of conveying a threat of unspecified disciplinary action, and was experienced as such. He did not target any individual, nor intend to threaten     anyone with disciplinary action. However, he ought to have realised that his reference to the Civil Service Code could well have been understood as a threat.

(3) In relation to the MoJ Complaints:
    (a) The significance of the MoJ Group Complaint is that it paved the way for all of the other Complaints. The participants in the MoJ Group Complaint deserve credit for their courage in coming forward. But its composition and content make it     unsuitable as a basis for any findings about the DPM’s conduct.

    (b) On a number of occasions at meetings with policy officials, the DPM acted in a manner which was intimidating, in the sense of going further than was necessary or appropriate in delivering critical feedback, and also insulting, in the sense of     making unconstructive critical comments about the quality of work done (whether or not as a matter of substance any criticism was justified). By way of example, he complained about the absence of what he referred to as ‘basic information’ or     ‘the basics’, about ‘obstructiveness’ on the part of officials whom he perceived to be resistant to his policies, and described some work as ‘utterly useless’ and ‘woeful’.

    (c) The DPM did not intend by the conduct described to upset or humiliate. Nor did he target anyone for a specific type of treatment.

    (d) His interruptive style is not itself behaviour that could be regarded as intimidating or insulting. However, individuals who had previously experienced the DPM express an unconstructive criticism of their work (and 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 unconstructive critical feedback and regular interruption is likely to be experienced as intimidating, in the sense of     being unreasonably difficult to deal with, and plainly was so experienced by some individuals.

    (e) 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 of his behaviour on their health.

    (f) Adopting the language of Dame Sue Owen’s report (while acknowledging that it is not part of the definition accepted in the FDA Case and that both types of conduct may amount to bullying), the DPM’s conduct during the MoJ Period was     sometimes ‘abrasive’, in the sense of a personal style which is or feels intimidating or insulting to the individual, but is not intended to be so. His conduct was not, however, ‘abusive’, in the sense of behaviour which is intended and specifically     targeted.

    (g) The DPM has been able to regulate this level of ‘abrasiveness’ since the announcement of the investigation. He should have altered his approach earlier.

    (h) Since the investigation was announced, there has not been any valid ground for criticism of the DPM’s conduct.