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.
177. In view of the findings of fact, and in light of the Terms of Reference, questions in relation to the Ministerial Code are a matter for the Prime Minister.
46
