have been understood as suggesting that those involved had acted in breach of the Civil Service Code (and so would have been in breach of their contracts of employment). This had a significant adverse effect on a particular individual (a different person from the individual who made the FCDO Complaint), 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. He did not target any individual, nor intend to threaten anyone with disciplinary action. However, he ought to have realised that referring in this way to the Civil Service Code could have been understood as such a threat.
154. After this (second) occasion, Sir Philip Barton told the DPM in a private and informal meeting that he should not threaten officials with reference to the Civil Service Code. The DPM disputed that any such conversation had occurred. The discussion was not minuted or otherwise recorded. On this point, I prefer the evidence of Sir Philip. He had no reason to make up such a conversation with a view to protecting himself; the FCDO Complaint has not been made public. Nor was Sir Philip acting as though he were the DPM's employer or manager.
155. I also find that neither Sir Philip, nor anyone else, used the word 'bullying' or anything similar in communication with the DPM.
156. In so far as may be relevant, there are some findings of fact which could be taken into account as potential mitigating (but not justifying) circumstances in respect of the DPM's conduct:
- (1) His belief in the correctness of his view of events is genuinely held.
- (2) There was or could reasonably be thought to have been an element of provocation, in the sense that others underestimated the extent to which the DPM wished to be involved in the detail of decision-making.
- (3) The events in question took place a considerable time before the FCDO Complaint was made.
- (4) The FCDO Complaints related only to part of the FCDO Period.
36
