172. I can deal with my specific findings of fact about the MoJ Additional Complaints on a compendious basis, using particular matters to explain my findings:
- (1) It is likely that there had been some discussion and cooperation between certain relevant individuals before the MoJ Additional Complaints were submitted. However, I did not detect any sense in which they attempted to tailor their evidence to fit with any other person's.
- (2) On a number of occasions of meetings with policy officials (albeit by no means in every case) 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). Specific instances of this type of conduct are set out below.
- (3) The DPM sometimes takes a strong view that officials should have been prepared in advance to answer his questions at a meeting and, in the event that they cannot do so, offers largely unconstructive criticism about the matter. A particular phrase used by the DPM was to complain about the absence of what he referred to as 'basic information' or 'the basics'. The public airing (in the context of a meeting) of a comment of this kind, where others present are not or may not be well-placed to judge whether the criticism is well-founded, is likely to be experienced as an unfairly personal criticism by the individual to whom the comment is directed and was so experienced by some individuals.
- (4) The same type of interaction could also occur when the DPM felt frustrated that his policy objectives were not being implemented with sufficient commitment. There was an occasion when I find, on balance, that the DPM referred to 'obstructiveness' on the part of the relevant team. The DPM held the view that there was what he regarded as a 'cultural resistance' within the MoJ to his reforms and it is more likely than not that this view was manifested by the DPM in his comments. One individual perceived the comment to have been directed personally and unfairly at him and was insulted by it. I do not find that the DPM intended his comment personally, but it was reasonably interpreted in that way.
40
