‘Code of practice needed for accused public figures’
POLITICIANS accused of sexual misconduct should not be suspended or sacked until a full investigation has been completed, a retired High Court judge has said in the wake of Carl Sargeant’s death.
Sir Richard Henriques wrote a damning report into the Metropolitan Police’s Westminster paedophile inquiry, identifying 40 areas of concern and suggesting that too much credence had been given to unsubstantiated allegations.
Now he has called for a standard “code of practice” amid concerns about the treatment of public figures accused of sexual misdemeanours.
Mr Sargeant was suspended by the Labour Party and sacked from the Cabinet before a formal investigation had taken place.
Before his death the AM complained that he had not been informed of the precise nature of the complaints against him.
Sir Richard told the Daily Telegraph: “Investigation must precede detrimental action and avoidable publicity. A code of practice is necessary.
“At present those accused – often of conduct well short of criminal conduct such as viewing pornography, sending suggestive text messages, being over tactile, making unwanted sexual advances, making bawdy jokes or suggestive remarks even juvenile behaviour – find themselves suspended from their parties, from their occupations or from the airwaves.
“The consequences are traumatic both for them and their families, for their finances for their reputation and their health. We must do better.”
Sir Richard, who said he had been appalled by the treatment of Mr Sargeant, added: “Time and again those accused are suspended either from their parliamentary party or from their occupations in the media whilst an investigation takes place.
“The suspension and adverse publicity almost invariably precedes the investigation permitting the complaint – true or false – to inflict untold damage upon the reputation and/ or the finances of the accused person.
“Frequently those accused are not informed of the allegation nor the complainant prior to suspension.
“What has happened to the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof even on the balance of probability?”
Three days after Mr Sargeant’s sacking, and a day before he apparently committed suicide, the AM’s solicitor Huw Bowden wrote to Sam Matthews, the Labour Party’s head of disputes, stating: “We would make it clear ... that our client categorically denies any allegation that he has acted in a manner that is either prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the party.
“We are led to believe the allegations concern conduct that you described as our client having acted towards others in such a way as alleged to be ‘unwanted attention, inappropriate touching or groping.’
“We make it clear that any such allegations are categorically denied.”
Mr Bowden asked for details of the allegations “to enable [Mr Sargeant] both to defend himself and to be satisfied as to the legitimacy and transparency of the procedure conducted upon receipt of the complaint”.
The solicitor went on to express grave concern that further delay would “seriously prejudice him”. Referring to the likely delay in holding a Labour Party disciplinary hearing – which had been mooted for January 16 2018 – Mr Bowden said that “was not only prejudicial to the preparation of his case but also to his physical and mental wellbeing”.
In another letter to Mr Matthews – also written on the same day – Mr Bowden raised concerns about how Mr Jones had handled the complaints he had received about Mr Sargeant.
Mr Bowden wrote: “On Friday the First Minister of Wales advised our client he could not provide details of the complaint or complainants, other than that his special adviser Matt Greenough had spoken to the complainant or complainants to verify the complaint.
“There appears to be a very real possibility that the evidence of the witnesses is being manipulated and numerous conversations with the witnesses by various members of the First Minister’s office at the very least must create uncertainties about the credibility of any evidence in due course.”
Mr Matthews confirmed that the allegations about Mr Sargeant had not been referred to the police.
We now understand that the Labour Party will not be carrying out the planned investigation into the allegations against Mr Sargeant.
The purpose of any such inquiry is to determine whether the accused member should have disciplinary action taken against them, be expelled from the party or have their suspension lifted. Mr Sargeant’s death renders such an investigation unnecessary: the party’s role goes no further.
There are now three inquiries arising out of the case.
There is to be an independent inquiry led by a senior lawyer into the First Minister’s treatment of Mr Sargeant, a further inquiry led by an independent adviser to the Scottish Government into the suggestion that Carwyn Jones misled the National Assembly when he denied knowledge of bullying allegations relating to the Ministerial floor of the Senedd, and now a third inquiry into whether news of Mr Sargeant’s sacking was leaked in advance.
Whether the first inquiry will look at the sexual harassment allegations in detail will depend on its agreed terms of reference, still being negotiated between the Welsh Government and the Sargeant family’s lawyers.