Watchdog criticises Labour MP who asked friend for diazepam
A WELSH Labour MP has been criticised by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner for a “severe error of judgement” and for complicity in committing a criminal offence after asking a constituent to supply him with the prescription-only drug diazepam to help him with mental health difficulties.
But Cardiff South and Penarth MP Stephen Doughty was not considered to have broken the MPs’ code of conduct.
A complaint was made to the commissioner earlier this year after his constituent Byron Long revealed to the Mail on Sunday that he had supplied Mr Doughty with diazepam, a Class C controlled drug.
The commissioner’s judgement states: “The complainant provided text messages reflecting that Mr Doughty had asked the complainant to supply him with diazepam, and alleged that Mr Doughty had asked him for diazepam on several further occasions.
“The complainant alleged that Mr Doughty had deliberately ‘mixed’ his casework with requests for diazepam.
“The complainant further stated he was vulnerable, that Mr Doughty had known this and had groomed him in order to obtain the diazepam.
“Based on the information provided by the complainant, it appeared that the complainant had met Mr Doughty in the course of his role as a member. It also appeared possible that Mr Doughty might have used his status as a Member to obtain the diazepam from the complainant.
“Diazepam is described by the NHS as a sleeping tablet prescribed to treat anxiety, insomnia and a variety of other conditions.”
Mr Doughty met the complainant in 2012-13 via the local Labour Party, and they became close friends. The complainant subsequently raised a number of constituency issues with Mr Doughty.
The judgements adds: “Mr Doughty asked the complainant to provide him with diazepam on July 19, 2019.
“The friendship between the complainant and Mr Doughty broke down in 2020.
“The complainant was cautioned in June 2021 for the supply of class C drugs to Mr Doughty. The police took no action against Mr Doughty, recording there was only evidence to support Mr Doughty receiving diazepam on a single occasion.”
The commissioner stated: “By obtaining diazepam from the complainant, Mr Doughty was complicit in a criminal offence, for which the complainant was later issued a criminal caution.
“Therefore, I do not consider that Mr Doughty was acting in a purely personal and private capacity when interacting with the complainant.
“Mr Doughty has accepted that he asked the complainant for and obtained diazepam on one occasion.”
The commissioner found no evidence that Mr Doughty requested, or was supplied with, diazepam from Mr Long on any other occasion.
The judgement added: “The complainant has alleged that Mr Doughty built up a friendship with him in order to groom him and procure diazepam from him. Mr Doughty denied this allegation.
“Mr Doughty was aware that the complainant was a vulnerable individual. While Mr Doughty was also going through a very difficult period and was himself suffering from mental health issues at the time of the conduct, he failed to recognise or properly consider the impact his role as a Member had on the dynamic between him and the complainant.
“I have considered whether Mr Doughty exploited his knowledge of the complainant’s vulnerability to obtain the diazepam. The evidence reflects a severe failure of judgement on the part of Mr Doughty, rather than any attempt to deliberately exploit the complainant.
“Mr Doughty did not demonstrate an appreciation that, by asking the complainant to provide him with diazepam, he was asking him to commit a criminal offence. I have seen nothing to suggest Mr Doughty attempted to exert control on or exploit the complainant.
“The evidence reflects that Mr Doughty asked the complainant to provide him with diazepam when he was suffering from a period of mental ill-health and nervous about an upcoming long-haul flight. Mr Doughty was concerned he did not have time to get diazepam, which he had been prescribed previously and has been prescribed since, through his GP. Mr Doughty was so distressed that he ended up cancelling the flight and did not need the diazepam.
“I have found that Mr Doughty asked for and obtained diazepam from the complainant on one occasion under a specific set of circumstances. I do not consider it likely that Mr Doughty would have struck up a six-year friendship with the complainant in order to procure diazepam (for which he has had regular prescriptions) from the complainant. I therefore find Mr Doughty did not build up a friendship with the complainant to groom him, or to procure diazepam from him...
“Mr Doughty has accepted that his actions fell well below the standard of behaviour expected from Members and has apologised profusely for his behaviour... However damaging these events have been for Mr Doughty personally, I am not persuaded that his actions have caused significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House as a whole, or of its Members generally.
“Mr Doughty has learned a very difficult lesson, but his naivety and ill-advised behaviour does not reflect more widely on other Members. I do not therefore uphold the allegation that he acted in breach of Paragraph 17 of the Code of Conduct.”