128. Sir Philip's evidence was convincing and I do not think that he had any good reason to make up such a conversation with a view to protecting himself after the event. None of the details of the FCDO Complaint has been the subject of media reporting and there would therefore have been no reason for Sir Philip to react defensively. Contrary to the DPM's assertion, I did not regard it as plausible that the meeting should have been minuted or the occasion treated as though the DPM were an employee and Sir Philip the representative of his employer.
129. In the context of the MoJ Complaints, there was a similar factual dispute between Antonia Romeo (Permanent Secretary) and the DPM as to whether she had on a number of occasions (said to have been 9 March 2022, 14 July 2022 and 27 October 2022), drawn to his attention concerns about his tone and behaviour in interactions with civil servants, as distinct from matters of work pressure and overall departmental morale. Ms Romeo produced notes of these conversations, which I was satisfied were derived from her contemporaneous records. The DPM sought to challenge the reliability of these notes on various grounds. I was not convinced by those challenges and did not consider that Ms Romeo would have had any reason to manufacture or manipulate the content of these notes. The consequent findings are as follows:
- (1) On 9 March 2022 Ms Romeo told the DPM that there had been complaints about his behaviour in relation to civil servants, although she did not provide any specific information. She made the point that if he had performance concerns about any particular official, he should not seek to address them in the context of a meeting but should rather address them to her.
- (2) A similar point was conveyed on 14 July 2022. Ms Romeo acknowledged that the DPM may be frustrated when the department did not deliver what he required, but said that if such an occasion arose, and she was not present, he should speak to her about it afterwards rather than express frustration to the officials in question.
130. The dispute about the 27 October 2022 conversation was in substance a reflection of the dispute about the earlier conversations. None of the Complaints allege any unacceptable conduct in the period following the DPM's reappointment as Secretary of State for Justice. It is not necessary in those circumstances to go further.
30
