Coroner won’t hear details of allegations that am didn’t know

THE coroner presiding over the inquest into the death of Carl Sargeant has refused to hear evidence relating to the allegations against the late AM.

At the time of his death in November last year, Mr Sargeant was facing allegations from three women that he only knew related to “unwelcome attention, inappropriate touching or groping”.

Coroner John Gittins had originally decided that the five-day inquest sitting in Ruthin would not hear evidence relating to allegations Mr Sargeant did not know the details of himself.

And he reiterated his decision late yesterday despite hearing a powerful submission from the barrister representing First Minister Carwyn Jones at the hearing.

Cathryn McGahey QC, who was formerly junior counsel to the Bloody Sunday inquiry from 2000 to 2010, had argued that the hearing had only so far seen “one side of the picture”.

She said it was “unfair” only to hear details about Mr Sargeant’s long-standing depression, which dated back to a traumatic family event in 2014, and not to consider the impact on him that his own “acts” may have had.

She referred the court to the words Mr Sargeant had himself used to a ministerial driver, Calvin Williams, who told the inquest that the former communities minister had described his sacking as “my own fault. I have brought it on myself”.

She also cited his comments to his private office that he had “let them down” and to his family in the note found with him that he had “failed” them.

Ms McGahey said: “We submit it is wrong at this stage [for the court] to deprive itself of the opportunity to investigate what ‘acts’ may have been preying on his [Mr Sargeant’s] mind.”

She said that those acts “go very clearly to intention”.

She said: “At the moment this inquest has no evidence about what these acts were which were clearly preying on his mind.”

Giving his decision, senior North Wales (East and Central) coroner John Gittins said “it has not been an easy decision”.

However, he said that he did not need to call additional witnesses to come to a determination on the four areas he has to address [who the deceased was, and where, when and how they came by their death].

The witnesses that the First Minister’s barrister had applied to call were Flintshire council leader Aaron Shotton and deputy leader Bernie Attridge.

Ms McGahey had said their testimony would also lead the court to consider whether “local hostility or lack of support” were factors in the AM’s death.

She told the hearing a witness statement from Mr Shotton called into question the written statement to the inquest of Mr Attridge, who is understood to have told the hearing he had no knowledge of allegations against Mr Sargeant.

She had said on Wednesday that text messages showed “he had some knowledge of behaviours that would have made Mr Sargeant anxious”.

She said: “In a text to Mr Shotton on November 5 he said there were rumours circulating in the Labour Club and a split in the family as a result.

“It went on that he wanted to discourage anyone in the Labour Club from giving their support to Mr Sargeant. He then implies that Mr Sargeant has done something that could lead to imprisonment.”

Ms McGahey also said other witnesses claimed there had been calls made by Mr Attridge in which he wished to “report certain matters concerning Carl Sargeant”.

Repeating her application to call Mr Attridge yesterday, she said the only other option to address the alleged inconsistency would be a police investigation into claims of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

But she says if there was such an investigation, and it uncovered evidence which impacted on Mr Sargeant’s inquest, there was a possibility there could be calls for the finding of the inquest to be quashed.

Ms McGahey said it would be right that Mr Attridge should be able to