‘We can’t help but feel we are looking at a cover-up’
HEARTBROKEN WIDOW OF TRAGIC AM CARL SARGEANT SPEAKS OUT IN FIRST INTERVIEW SINCE HIS DEATH
THE widow of former Welsh Government Cabinet Secretary Carl Sargeant is asking the High Court to intervene in a stand-off that has delayed the QC-led inquiry into the way her husband was treated by First Minister Carwyn Jones.
Mr Sargeant is believed to have committed suicide in November last year, four days after being removed from his post as Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children.
Mr Jones told Mr Sargeant that allegations of sexual harassment had been made against him, although he refused to be more specific.
Mr Sargeant strenuously denied any wrongdoing and was found dead at his Connah’s Quay home.
Now, in her first interview since her husband’s death, Bernie Sargeant has spoken of her family’s anguish and explained why she feels she has no alternative but to seek a judicial review of the inquiry’s ground rules.
Mrs Sargeant has also spoken about her concerns that the way the Welsh Government is approaching the inquiry has the makings of a cover-up.
In an application lodged by lawyers at the High Court in London last week, Mrs Sargeant is seeking to challenge the “unlawful” decision-making of First Minister Carwyn Jones and Permanent Secretary Dame Shan Morgan in relation to the inquiry’s operational protocol, which will govern how the inquiry will proceed.
The inquiry is led by Paul Bowen QC as chair and independent investigator, but the operational protocol was drafted by the Permanent Secretary, who reports to the First Minister.
Mrs Sargeant claims decisions about how the inquiry will be run were taken by the First Minister and the Permanent Secretary without properly consulting her.
Specifically, she is challenging decisions to bar the family’s lawyers from being able to question witnesses; to allow the independent investigator to bar the family from hearings; to prevent oral evidence from being heard in public; and to prevent the independent investigator from being able to order witnesses to give evidence.
Mrs Sargeant is also challenging the decision by the Welsh Government to send out a memo to all its civil servants in June asking them to notify the Permanent Secretary or her colleagues in governance or human resources if they had evidence directly relating to the inquiry, rather than go direct to Mr Bowen.
An amendment was hurriedly sent advising staff that they could also contact the inquiry.
However, the application argues that this request may have hampered the inquiry and, despite the amended message, the application claims it still read as if to impose a requirement to share evidence with the Permanent Secretary before the independent investigator.
The High Court application asserts that such decisions are “unlawful and/ or irrational and/or amount to fettering of discretion and/or demonstrate an absence of independence and/or violate Articles 2, 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights”.
It also highlights “confusion and concerns” about the role of the First Minister in making decisions about the operational protocol given that it is his actions that are under investigation.
Speaking publicly for the first time since her husband died, Bernie Sargeant said: “I’m so disappointed that I have been forced to take this action. I had thought after Carl’s death that I, and my young family, would be treated with honesty and respect. Yet, we can’t help but feel we are looking at a cover-up.
“We have a right to be able to hear and challenge the evidence. Please believe me, we are not trying to be obstructive. We just want to get to the truth and feel that we have a great deal to offer the inquiry. We don’t want to be excluded.
“It’s been over nine months since Carl’s death and we’re no further forward in getting answers than we were last November. All I want is to understand and process why my husband is no longer here. This whole thing just adds agony to heartbreak, but I owe it to Carl to get the full picture.”
Mrs Sargeant said: “This is the very first interview I’ve given since Carl’s death. I’m a very private person, but I feel the time is right for me to have my say. I’m sure that’s what Carl would have wanted.
“The impact of Carl’s death has been devastating for the whole family.
“Carl was a very strong character and he was greatly loved. It is appalling that my children will never see their dad again, and that I have lost my husband. We got married 26 years ago in July.
“Our pain has been made only worse by the fact that the inquiry has not got under way more than nine months after Carl died.
“When Carwyn Jones announced the inquiry in the days after Carl’s death, we were told it would be open and transparent, but that hasn’t proved to be the case.
“We thought it would have been well under way by now, if not completed already. It hasn’t even started.
“We feel as a family that we’ve been excluded by the Welsh Government, even though that wasn’t supposed to happen. We feel they’re not listening to us.
“We didn’t want to have to take this legal route, but it seems that’s the only option we have to get the kind of inquiry we want.
“Carwyn Jones could put an end to this legal action by saying that he was prepared to be cross-examined by the QC who represents us and that the inquiry’s protocol should be changed so it is more open.
“I can’t see any reason why he would not want that to happen. We also can’t understand why we would be allowed to attend the inquiry only at the chairman’s discretion. So far as we are concerned, we should be allowed to attend all the hearings.”
Jack Sargeant, who succeeded his late father as AM for Alyn & Deeside when he won a by-election in February this year, said: “I’m not a lawyer, but if both sides – the family and the Welsh Government – said they were happy for the inquiry to be more open, with public hearings and witnesses being cross-examined by the family’s QC, I’m sure it would have a big influence on how it was organised.”
Mrs Sargeant said: “We are a very close family and discussed the nature of the allegations made against Carl, even though he was never told what precisely they were. I believe Carl 100% when he denied any wrongdoing.”
Neil Hudgell of Hudgell Solicitors represents Mrs Sargeant. He said: “I have repeatedly outlined the family’s and our own concerns to the First Minister, the Permanent Secretary and the inquiry chair, but they have been ignored. Aside from the ongoing and very obvious distress this is causing Bernie and her family, we now have no other option but to seek a judicial review.”
The firm has instructed Leslie Thomas QC of Garden Court Chambers and Sheryn Omeri of Cloisters Chambers. Mr Thomas represents families of some of the Grenfell Tower fire victims as well as families of some of those who died in the Hillsborough disaster.
At the beginning of March 2018, the final terms of reference for the inquiry were set as follows: “To conduct an investigation into the First Minister’s actions and decisions in relation to Carl Sargeant’s departure from his post as Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children and thereafter.”
A spokesman for the First Minister said: “This is not, and was never intended to be, a public inquiry. Nor is it an investigation into the tragic death of Carl Sargeant. That is a matter for the inquest, which is expected to take place in the autumn.
“The First Minister established this investigation voluntarily, solely and specifically to give independent scrutiny of the actions and decisions which he took in relation to Carl Sargeant at the time of the Ministerial Reshuffle last November.
“Independence is assured by the appointment of a QC who will have access to all the evidence and will have the opportunity to cross-examine the First Minister and other witnesses.
“The process is also designed to protect the confidentiality of the women who had made complaints about the behaviour of Carl Sargeant when he was a Minister in the Welsh Government.
“The women made those complaints confidentially and have an ongoing legal entitlement to anonymity.
“The family has been a part of the process from the outset and agreed the appointment of the QC who is leading the independent investigation. The nature of the investigation has been clear since January when draft operational arrangements for the Investigation were shared with Members of the Welsh Assembly.
“The specific features of the Protocol now being challenged would be wholly inconsistent with what has been established.
“We believe, and have consistently stated, that this proposed action cannot be justified.”
IT is now more than nine months since Carl Sargeant apparently took his own life, four days after being removed from the Welsh Cabinet following unspecified allegations of sexual harassment.
Many see his death as the most shocking event in Welsh politics since the National Assembly was established in 1999.
Within days Carwyn Jones announced that an independent QC-led inquiry would look at how Mr Sargeant was treated by him.
The widespread assumption at the time was that such an inquiry would quickly be under way, and that the family’s wishes about how it should be conducted would be accommodated.
As things have turned out, such an assumption was misplaced.
It now seems unlikely the inquiry will begin before the first anniversary of Mr Sargeant’s death on November 7.
For a family that has had to deal with the grievous loss of a greatly loved husband and father, the failure to proceed with the inquiry has inevitably added to the pain.
But important as getting answers for the Sargeant family may be, there are other compelling reasons for ensuring that the inquiry is conducted in as open and transparent a way as possible.
That, after all, was the promise when the Assembly was set up, and is evident in the Senedd’s very design.
There are many questions that remain unanswered about the events leading up to Carl Sargeant’s sacking and death, and especially about decisions taken by the First Minister. The people of Wales, no less than Mr Sargeant’s family – have a right to answers that can only come from the rigorous scrutiny of Mr Jones and others involved in those events.
There seems no credible reason why Mr Jones should not be crossexamined in public by the Sargeant family’s legal team. He is, of course, at the very centre of the inquiry, which has been set up specifically to look at his treatment of Mr Sargeant.
Equally, who benefits from blocking the Sargeant family’s ability to attend evidence sessions?
There are, of course, rare occasions when court cases – or sections of them – take place behind closed doors for legitimate security reasons. But such considerations do not apply in these circumstances. Carwyn Jones should respond positively to the Sargeant family’s call for him to back a more transparent inquiry than the one offered so far.