- (5) There was a similar occasion when the DPM was frustrated that one of his steers about a proposed reform had not been implemented in the paper presented. For the purpose of analysis, it does not matter whether the DPM's frustration was or was not well-founded and so I have assumed (without concluding) that the DPM was legitimately frustrated. There was a stark dispute as to whether the DPM had described the work done as 'utterly useless' and 'woeful'. On balance, I think that these were the words used; they comprised criticism that was not in the nature of constructive feedback. They were reasonably understood as insulting personal criticism.
- (6) It is likely that at the same meeting the DPM referred to the Civil Service Code, in the context of expressing his frustration that officials were not doing what he had asked of them. However, this was not intended as a threat of disciplinary action and was not understood as such.
- (7) I find that the DPM did not intend by the conduct described to upset or humiliate. He was typically so focused on what he regards as his desired outcome and how – as he saw it – to achieve that outcome effectively that he did not always have in mind the impact of his approach at the level of the individual who was affected by it.
- (8) The DPM did not target anyone for a specific type of treatment. On the contrary, he appears to have adopted the same style throughout (at least until the commencement of the investigation). However, he ought to have realised earlier that some individuals would find it difficult to cope with his style and should have adjusted his behaviour accordingly.
- (9) The DPM's approach to accountability and responsibility may on occasion be applied with undue inflexibility. For example, his dissatisfaction that a particular, if relatively minor, issue had not been resolved after an extended period of time led him to press repeatedly, to identify the very junior official responsible and to the appearance of a more senior official to apologise to the DPM. However, neither of those officials gave evidence that they had been adversely affected and the individual who raised the matter did not suggest that they had been significantly affected by it.
41
