Report

by the

Northern Ireland Assembly Commissioner for Standards

on complaints against

Basil McCrea MLA

ASSEMBLY CONFIDENTIAL (until published by order of the Committee on Standards and Privileges)

ASSEMBLY CONFIDENTIAL (until published by order of the Committee on Standards and Privileges)

CONTENTS Page

Background 1

Ashleigh Murray’s failure to attend for interview 2

The Complaints 5

The Investigation 7

Complaint 1 – Obtaining cash by deception from OCE 8 Complaint 2 – Misuse of Assembly stationery 11 Complaint 3 – Attempt to obtain cash by deception from OCE 15 Complaint 4 – Use of media to blacken Miss Murray’s name 19 Complaint 5 – Taking and possession of voyeuristic photographs 23 Complaint 6 – Sexual misconduct towards Jacquelyn Neglia 29 Complaint 7 – Bullying and harassment of Jacquelyn Neglia 33 Complaint 8 – Misconduct towards Alan Patterson 40 Complaint 9 – Sexual misconduct towards Ashleigh Murray 48 Complaint 10 – Misconduct towards Karen Tabahe 58 Complaint 11 – Misconduct towards Nigel Macauley 63 Complaint 12 – Bullying and harassment of Ashleigh Murray 66

Conspiracy 79

Recommendations 80

Summary 81

Annex A Code provisions 82 Annex B Documents 84

ASSEMBLY CONFIDENTIAL (until published by order of the Committee on Standards and Privileges)

ASSEMBLY CONFIDENTIAL (until published by order of the Committee on Standards and Privileges)

Background On 10 July 2014 I received a document containing a number of complaints against Basil McCrea MLA from John McCallister MLA.1 2 These complaints did not meet the admissibility criteria set out in paragraph 3.2 of the General Procedures Direction.3 Following the receipt of further information, I decided on 12 August 2014 that the complaints were admissible. That day I wrote to Mr McCrea, Mr McCallister and your Clerk advising them that I had commenced my investigation into them.

On 17 July 2014 I received an email with two attachments from Alan Patterson.4 The first attachment set out a number of complaints against Basil McCrea.5 The second attachment set out a text exchange between Mr Patterson and Mr McCrea on 24 July 2013.6 As these complaints did not meet the admissibility criteria I required Mr Patterson to furnish me with further information which he did on 6 August 2014.7 On 14 August I wrote to Mr McCrea, Mr Patterson and your Clerk advising them that I had commenced my investigation into these complaints.

On 8 August 2014 I received a letter from solicitors acting for Ashleigh Murray together with a document described as her ’Statement of Complaint’ which contained a number of complaints against Mr McCrea.8 These complaints did not meet the admissibility criteria. Further information, which I was satisfied rendered the complaints admissible, was received on 1 September and four

1 Counsel has advised that when a document contains a number of allegations of misconduct each should be treated as a separate complaint. Accordingly, although Mr McCallister, Mr Patterson and Ms Murray each submitted a single complaint document each of the numerous allegations of misconduct contained in each of them has been dealt with as a separate complaint. 2 Document JMcC1 3 Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 (General Procedures) Direction 2012 4 Document AP1 5 Document AP2 6 Document AP3 7 Documents AP4-15 8 Documents AM1 & AM2 1 days later I wrote to Mr McCrea, Ms Murray’s solicitors and your Clerk advising them that I had commenced my investigation into them.

The provisions of the Code most relevant to this investigation are at Annex A.

Copies of the complaint documents, the material provided in support of them and all other material used in reaching my decisions are at Annex B. Documents JMcC3 to JMcC9, DB25 to DB27 and DB 48 were redacted prior to being submitted to me. I have redacted other documents by deleting personal contact and bank details.

Ashleigh Murray’s failure to attend for interview

To mitigate the risk that the ill-informed and inaccurate comments made by Mr could prejudice readers of this report I pause to set out the facts concerning Ashleigh Murray’s failure to attend for further interview.

Miss Murray attended for interview on 13 November 2014. The interview was conducted in the presence of her female solicitor. That interview did not deal with Miss Murray’s allegations of sexual misconduct by Mr McCrea towards her. Although Miss Murray understandably found it distressing when her credibility was challenged her solicitor made no complaint, either then or thereafter, about the way in which her client had been treated. At the end of the interview I told Miss Murray that I would have to meet with her again to deal with other allegations she had made.10

On 15 January 2015 I wrote to Miss Murray’s solicitors informing them that I was now ready to interview their client on a range of further allegations including her allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour by Mr McCrea and her employment history prior to starting work as a volunteer for Mr McCrea.11

10 Document DB14 11 Document DB15 2

No response was received for seven weeks until, on 5 March, I received a letter from her solicitors enclosing a report from her GP in relation to her ongoing medical condition.12 That report was dated 29 January 2015 and stated that Miss Murray was suffering from ‘severe stress’. It went on to say . She has been called for a hearing of the Standards and Privileges Committee. She has found the process very traumatic and does not feel fit to attend. Givenhow (sic) this process has affected her perhap (sic) she could be exclused (sic) from giving further evidence.’13

It is plain that in giving his report the GP had proceeded on the erroneous basis, presumably as a result of what Miss Murray told him, that she had been interviewed by the Standards and Privileges Committee and that she was being asked again to appear before that Committee. It should be noted that the GP did not state that she was unfit to attend for interview even by the Committee but simply asked if she could be excused attendance.

Despite these matters and the fact that the report was based on Miss Murray’s condition at least four weeks earlier I was content meantime not to proceed with her interview. On 5 March 2015 I wrote to her solicitors advising them of my decision.14 No acknowledgement was received.

As I had heard nothing from her solicitors I wrote to them again on 2 April 2015 pointing out the need to progress my investigation and asking for a medical certificate giving an indication of when their client was likely to be able to attend for interview.15 I drew attention to the note prepared by the Crown Prosecution Service on the issuing of medical certificates and suggested that they should draw it to the attention of Miss Murray’s GP or whoever else was going to examine her for the purpose of the cerificate. Whilst, of course, the CPS has no role in Northern Ireland, I considered that the note was a useful

12 Document DB16 13 Document DB17 14 Document DB18 15 Document DB19 3 summary of what it was reasonable to expect in any medical certificate that was to be provided to the effect that Miss Murray was unfit to be interviewed. I advised Miss Murray’s solicitors that unless such an appropriate medical certificate was provided by 14 May 2015 it was likely that I would ‘proceed with my investigation without further correspondence.’ No response was received to that letter.

I am not satisfied that Miss Murray was in fact unfit to attend for further interview. No medical report to that effect has ever been provided to me. It was clear that the powers conferred on me by the Act16 did not permit me to require Miss Murray to submit to an examination by a medical practitioner. It was also clear that service of a Notice requiring her attendance would not secure her evidence. In these circumstances I reluctantly concluded that it was necessary to proceed without the benefit of Miss Murray’s further evidence.

Rather than illness I suspect that the true reason for Miss Murray’s unwillingness to attend for further interview was simply that she had come to realise that what she said would not be accepted without question. She knew that some of the evidence she had already given was not credible and that she would, at any further interview be asked to account for the differing accounts she had given of a number of the alleged acts of misconduct, to explain further why she had delayed making any complaints for more than a year and about why she had not disclosed her previous employment history. She must have known that she would be asked why she had failed to tell Mr McCrea that she had, on

Further she must have known that she would be asked about why she had not told Mr McCrea that

16 Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 Part 2

4

Contrary to what was said by under the protection of privilege, it is quite untrue that Miss Murray was ‘so traumatised by the Commissioner that she had to walk out of the interview’ and ‘cannot give evidence again because of the way in which she was stressed and traumatised.’ In the course of her interview on 13 November 2013 Miss Murray left the interview room for two minutes along with her solicitor so that they could speak in private.20 After she returned to the room the interview continued for a further 43 minutes.21 At the end of the interview Miss Murray left along with her solicitor. At no time did she ‘walk out’ as stated by . It is highly regrettable that was duped by false information, doubtless originating from Miss Murray, into making his comments under the cloak of privilege without any attempt to verify the accuracy of that information. He must have known that his comments would be widely reported and that there was a risk of prejudice to my ongoing investigation. Whilst I will address this matter further at a later stage, I say no more of it in this report to avoid any risk of myself prejudicing the Committee’s decision making role.

The Complaints In his complaints22 Mr McCallister alleges a breach of the rule set out in the Code requiring that – ‘Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the Assembly and never undertake any action which would bring the Assembly into disrepute.

20 Document DB14 page 8B-C 21 Document DB14 pages 8C & 24C 22 Document JMcC1 5

He also alleges breaches of the Public Duty, Selflessness, Integrity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty, Equality, Respect and Leadership principles of the Code. The conduct alleged to have breached these provisions can be summarised as follows – 1. Inappropriate sexual behaviour towards current and former staff; 2. Bullying and harassment in the workplace; 3. Misuse/attempted misuse of Office Cost Expenditure (‘OCE’); and 4. The taking and possession of voyeuristic photographs of a former female staff member.

Mr Patterson alleges a breach of the same rule of conduct and also of the Public Duty, Integrity, Openness, Honesty, Leadership, Equality, Promoting Good Relations and Respect principles.23 The conduct said to have breached these provisions may be outlined as follows – 1. Bullying and harassment of staff including Ashleigh Murray; and 2 Improper treatment of Mr Patterson by – (a) Attempting to frustrate and pervert a potential complaint against Mr McCrea; (b) repeatedly making false allegations about, and using threatening behaviour towards him; (c) making false representations about his relationship with NI21 staff; and (d) constantly undermining his position in NI21.

In her complaint document Miss Murray alleges breaches of the same rule of conduct and also of the Public Duty, Selflessness, Integrity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty, Leadership and Promoting Good Relations principles.24 The conduct alleged to have breached these provisions can be summarised as Follows –  Inappropriate sexual behaviour towards Ms Murray on a number of occasions;

23 Document AP2 24 Document AM2 6

 Bullying and harassment of her in the workplace;  Misuse of OCE; and  Attempts by Mr McCrea to blacken Ms Murray’s name.

The Investigation It quickly became apparent that there was an overlap between a number of the complaints made by each of the three complainants and that a number of the witnesses would be common to complaints made by more than one of the complainants. Because of these close relationships I decided to conjoin the investigations and to submit a single report in respect of them.

I decided to group the numerous complaints into the twelve complaints indicated below. In relation to each I set out the general nature of the complaint and the identity of the person or persons making it. I then, where appropriate, summarise the evidence available and set out my findings of fact before giving my reasoned decision.

My investigation was suspended from 12 February 2015 until 26 May 2015 to avoid the risk of prejudicing a PSNI investigation into alleged criminal conduct by one of the complainants, John McCallister MLA. On 25 May 2015 I learned from the PSNI that it was likely to be several months before the matters they were investigating were resolved. The following day the PSNI confirmed that they were content that I resume my investigation of those aspects of the complaints that did not pose a risk of prejudice to their investigation. Having given careful consideration to the matter, and having had regard to my duty under paragraph 6.3 of the General Procedures Direction25, I resolved to re- commence my investigation into those matters that I could properly consider without interviewing Mr McCallister. A further report in respect of the outstanding matters will be submitted as soon as I can interview Mr McCallister without risk of prejudice to the police investigation or to any subsequent criminal proceedings.

25Paragraph 6.3 provides – ‘The Commissioner must conduct a full and thorough investigation and must at all times act in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness.’ 7

My investigation was hampered for several months by Miss Murray’s alleged unfitness to attend for interview and by the failure of her solicitors to reply to correspondence.

As it was clear that the credibility of witnesses would be an issue I resolved to take evidence, other than that of a purely formal nature, on oath. In almost all cases a recording rather than a note of the interview was made. In all cases the witness was afforded the opportunity to propose changes to the transcript or note of the interview.

At the end of my investigation Mr McCrea was afforded the opportunity to challenge any of the Findings of Fact I had made. He did not avail of that opportunity.

Documents relevant to my investigation were obtained either voluntarily of following service of a Notice requiring production.

Complaint 1 - Obtaining cash from OCE Account by deception Complaint The complaint is that Mr McCrea improperly obtained cash from his OCE by authorising a pay rise for Mr Mackrell, who was employed by him and so paid for out of his OCE, on the understanding that Mr Mackrell would keep the extra funds separately and use them to cover expenditure by Mr McCrea.

Complainant This complaint is made only by Mr McCallister. Curiously Miss Murray makes no mention of this alleged misconduct in her complaint document.26 When interviewed by me she was clear that she had no direct knowledge of the matter.27 Mr Mackrell has made no complaint in relation to this matter.

26 Document AM2 27 Document DB11 page 15D-E 8

Evidence The evidence in relation to this matter comes from Mr Mackrell, Mr McCrea and from the records of the Assembly Secretariat.

Both in his complaint document28 and in his covering letter29 Mr McCallister makes clear that he has no direct knowledge of the subject matter of his complaint and that he has relied entirely on what he was told by Miss Murray when he met her on 14 May 2015. In these circumstances I did not consider it necessary to interview Mr McCallister regarding his complaint.

When interviewed Mr Mackrell said that he had entered into an agreement with Mr McCrea to obtain money from the latter’s OCE allowance. Mr Mackrell claimed that when his contracted hours were increased from 16 to 40 per week he received a pay rise of £1 per hour from £6.08 to £7.08. It was agreed, he claimed, that the extra £40 per week was to be put into a separate account and used to pay expenses incurred by Mr McCrea. However, according to Mr Mackrell he did not, in fact, honour that agreement: He did not put the extra money into a separate account but simply kept a reckoning of it. Mr Mackrell said that he had made payments out of the money put aside each week on no more than six occasions and that the total amount that he had paid out was of the order of £60 - £70.30

At interview on 8 December 2014 Mr McCrea categorically denied the allegation against him. He said that Mr Mackrell’s contracted hours had been increased from 16 to 40 per week in July 2012 when he had ceased being a student. There had, Mr McCrea said, been no arrangement of the kind alleged by Mr Mackrell. Mr Mackrell had never paid bills on his behalf nor had Mr Mackrell given him money.31

28 Document JMcC1 paragraph 5(c) 29 Document JMcC1 letter paragraph 1 30 Document DB13 pages 11C-15C 31 Document DB14 pages 17B-21C 9

The Assembly records show that Jamie Mackrell was in the paid employment of Mr McCrea from 1 June 2011 until 17 May 201332. With effect from 2 July 2012 his contracted hours were increased from 16 to 40 per week.33 At that time his hourly rate increased from £7.00 to £7.08 and remained at that rate until the end of his employment.34

There is no other source of evidence in relation to this complaint of misconduct.

Findings of fact Having considered all the evidence I found the following facts proved - 1. Jamie Mackrell was in the paid employment of Mr McCrea from 1 June 2011 until 17 May 2013; 2. Until 1 July 2012 he was contracted to work 16 hours per week; 3. From 2 July 2013 until the end of his employment his contracted hours were increased to 40 per week; and 4. From 2 July 2012 his hourly rate of pay was increased from £7.00 to £7.08 per hour.

Reasoned decision Although the alleged misconduct that is the subject of this complaint took place more than two years before Mr McCallister submitted his complaint document I have no reason to doubt that he did not become aware of it until he met with Miss Murray on 14 May 201435. On that basis I am satisfied that this complaint was made within one year of the date on which Mr McCallister could reasonably have made it and, accordingly, it was made within the deadline set in the General Procedures Direction.36

The records show that when in July 2012 Mr Mackrell’s contracted hours were increased from 16 to 40 his hourly rate of pay changed from £7.00 to £7.08

32 Document DB56 33 Document TR11 34 Document DB56 35 Document JMcC1 – letter paragraph 1 36 Paragraph 3.2(g) provides that to be admissible a complaint must ‘be made within one year from the date on which the complainant ought reasonably to have made the complaint.’ 10 and not by £1.00 per hour as he alleged at interview. Mr McCrea’s version of events is consistent with the Assembly records. Mr Mackrell’s version cannot be squared with the Assembly records. Although Mr Mackrell did not strike me as being a deliberately dishonest witness I cannot, given the clear evidence from the Assembly records, accept his version of events as credible.

Accordingly, I do not find it established that there was any misuse or attempted misuse of OCE by Mr McCrea as alleged in Mr McCallister’s complaint.

Complaint 2 - Misuse of Assembly stationery Complaint The complaint is that Mr McCrea used Assembly notepaper and envelopes for Party political purposes contrary to the rules set out in the Financial Support for Members Handbook.

Complainant This complaint is made both by Miss Murray37 and Mr McCallister38.

Evidence The evidence in relation to this matter comes from Miss Murray, Annette Holden, Karen Tabahe and Mr McCrea and from the records of the Assembly Secretariat.

Both in his complaint document39 and in his covering letter40 Mr McCallister makes clear that he has no direct knowledge of the subject matter of his complaint and that he has relied entirely on what he was told by Miss Murray when he met her on 14 May 2015. In these circumstances I did not consider it necessary to interview Mr McCallister regarding his complaint.

37 Document AM2 paragraph 18 38 Document JMcC1paragraph 5(a) 39 Document JMcC1 paragraph 5(a) 40 Document JMcC1 letter paragraph 1 11

In her complaint document Miss Murray states – When working in the Lisburn office I was instructed by Mr McCrea to print out invites on 300 or more Assembly headed paper and envelopes paid for out of his Office Cost Allowance. I picked these up myself from the stationery store in Stormont. People assigned to this task were myself, , and . Mr McCrea was advised not to do this several times as it wasn’t allowed. This is another example of how Mr McCrea thinks the rules of law do not apply to him. This is a clear violation of the stipulations laid out by Stormont.’41

Miss Murray was interviewed on 13 November 201442. She said that around September 2013, whilst she was working at the Lisburn Office, she had personally collected ‘hundreds of pounds worth’ of Assembly headed paper and first class pre-paid envelopes from the Stormont stationery store. This was to be used to send out invitations. She was unable to recall precisely what the invitations were for other than that they were for ‘potential Members and people who were recently signed up to NI21.’ She told me that, along with Karen Tabahe and Fiona (McAteer) she told Mr McCrea that he could not use the Assembly paper and envelopes for party political purposes. According to Miss Murray, Mr McCrea initially ignored these warnings but that ‘a couple of hours later’ he had a change of mind. In the meantime Miss Murray, along with two others, had printed out the invitations and put them in the handwritten envelopes. According to her, the envelopes containing the invitations ‘were all thrown out’ after Mr McCrea’s change of mind. Miss Murray was unable to offer an explanation for why no mention was made in her complaint document of the invitations and envelopes having to be thrown out rather than posted.

Karen Tabahe was clear that she was not involved in anything to do with this matter and that she never told Mr McCrea, as alleged by Miss Murray, that Assembly stationary could not be used for party political purposes.43

41 Document AM2 paragraph 18 42 Document DB14 pages 12D-15B 43 Document DB 27 pages 2A-5B 12

At interview Mr McCrea denied the allegation.44 He was adamant that he did not in or about September 2013 instruct Miss Murray to type up and issue approximately 300 invitations. Mr McCrea showed me a bundle of Assembly ivory C5 first class pre-paid envelopes, of which Document BM11 is an example, which he had recovered from Miss Murray’s workplace in November 2013 after she had left his employment. These envelopes were unsealed. When found by Mr McCrea they each bore a handwritten address. His staff had placed a label over each address so that the envelopes could be used. Mr McCrea said that in the autumn 2013 invitations were to be sent out to persons who had shown an interest in NI21. These invitations, the envelopes used and the cost of postage had all been paid for out of Party funds. Mr McCrea produced to me documents showing that this was so.45

Mr McCrea also produced to me an email exchange between Annette Holden, a long-standing member of Mr McAllister’s staff, and Miss Murray. In it Ms Holden tells Miss Murray that the Party does not have sufficient funds to cover the cost of the invitations and postage and that ‘we will cover the cost from our OCA’. Ms Holden asked Miss Murray to prepare address labels and send them to her along with the invitations. Miss Murray replied that ‘she didn’t mind doing that’.46

At interview Ms Holden said initially that she could not recall having any involvement with the conference invitations but seemed to recall there was a discussion about them being paid for through OCE. She had, she told me, said that the invitations could not be paid for through OCE. When shown her email to Miss Murray she appeared flustered but confirmed that it was accurate. She accepted that when she sent it the intention was to pay the cost of sending out the invitations out of Mr McCallister’s OCE. She admitted knowing at that time that it was forbidden to use OCE for Party purposes but claimed that she had been acting on Mr McCallister’s instructions. Ms Holden said that she had expressed her dissatisfaction with the instruction but said she

44 Document DB pages 1C-9A 45 Documents BM12, BM13,BM14 & BM15 46 Document BM10 13 could recall neither Mr McCallister’s response nor why the cost had not in fact been paid for out of Mr McCallister’s OCE.47

The Director of Facilities/Keeper of the House confirmed that the records of the Assembly Secretariat showed that between 1 August and 3 December 2013 only 100 Assembly first class pre-paid A5 envelopes had been requisitioned by Mr McCrea and charged to his OCE. The records further showed that on no occasion during that period were more than 100 envelopes of any description requisitioned by Mr McCrea.48

Findings of Fact Having considered all the evidence I found the following facts proved - 1. Miss Murray did not collect ‘300 or more’ first class pre-paid envelopes and headed paper from the Assembly Stationery Store; 2. Mr McCrea did not instruct Miss Murray to use Assembly stationery for any improper purpose; 3. Ms Holden, perhaps acting on instructions from John McCallister MLA, told Miss Murray that it was intended to use OCE to cover the cost of envelopes and stamps for the invitations; and 4. The cost of the paper, envelopes and stamps for the invitations was met from NI21 funds.

Reasoned decision I do not accept Miss Murray’s evidence in relation to this complaint as reliable. Her account of collecting the envelopes and paper is contradicted by the Assembly records. Her statement under oath that all the envelopes ‘had to be thrown out’ is plainly wrong. Her failure to mention the instruction she received from Annette Holden either in her complaint or at interview is hard to comprehend. It is most unfortunate that the evidence of that instruction did not come to light until after Miss Murray’s interview and that she could not, because of her supposed illness, be questioned about it. Her account of having told Mr McCrea that he could not use OCE to cover the cost of the

47 Document DB 34 pages 5A-9B 48 Documents TR1, TR2, TR3 & TR4 14 envelopes and postage is contradicted by both Mr McCrea and Karen Tabahe, whom I accept as an entirely credible witness. Mr McCrea is adamant that he never instructed any improper use of Assembly stationery and had no knowledge of Miss Murray’s addressing of envelopes until he found the bundle of them after she had left his employment. He produced documents showing that all costs in connection with the invitations had been met out of NI21 funds. I am satisfied that the initial intention was that the cost of the envelopes, postage and paper was to be met from Mr McCallister’s OCE and that Mr McCrea played no part in this intended abuse of OCE. Given that Ms Holden accepts that she drafted the complaint document based on what Mr McCallister told her it is hard to think of any innocent explanation for the failure to make any mention in that document of her role and that of Mr McCallister in the matter.

Accordingly, I do not find it established that there was any misuse or attempted misuse of OCE by Mr McCrea as alleged in Miss Murray’s and Mr McCallister’s complaints.

Complaint 3 - Attempt to obtain cash by deception from OCE Complaint The complaint is that Mr McCrea attempted, by means of a scheme similar to that alleged in relation to Complaint 1, to improperly obtain money from his OCE. Miss Murray rather than Mr Mackrell is the person alleged to have been involved.

Complainant This complaint is made only by Mr McCallister.49 Miss Murray makes no mention of this matter in her complaint document but during her interview said that she now wished to complain it.

Evidence

49 Document JMcC1 paragraph 5(b) 15

The evidence in relation to this complaint comes principally from Miss Murray, Mr McCrea and from documents obtained in the course of my investigation.

Both in his complaint document50 and in his covering letter51 Mr McCallister makes clear that he has no direct knowledge of the subject matter of his complaint and that he has relied entirely on what he was told by Miss Murray when he met her on 14 May 2015. In these circumstances I did not consider it necessary to interview Mr McCallister regarding his complaint.

At interview on 13 November 2013 Miss Murray said, through her solicitor, that she wished to include this allegation as part of her complaint.52 When asked why the allegation had not been included in her complaint document Miss Murray claimed not to know. She said that the allegation had been included in her statement of 15 May 2014 but could not explain why it had not been included in her complaint document which had been drafted for her by her solicitor.53

The account of this alleged incident given by Miss Murray at interview was unclear. She said that she had started paid work for Mr McCrea in July 2013 and moved to his Lisburn office in August. Her net monthly pay should have been roughly £782.00. Shortly after starting paid work Miss Murray said that she told Mr McCrea of her financial difficulties and explained that she needed to be paid as soon as possible. In response he instructed one of his staff to send Miss Murray a weekly cheque for £183.00. Miss Murray produced a copy of a cheque dated 22 July 2013 for £183 payable to her and drawn on Mr McCrea’s No2 bank account together with a copy of her own bank statement showing credits of £183 on 22 July, 1 August and 9 August 2013.54 At the end of August 2013 Miss Murray received a cheque from the Assembly for £1,223.55. She did not think this unusual until at the end of September she received an Assembly cheque for more than £700.00 which was in line with her

50 Document JMcC1 paragraph 5(a) 51 Document JMcC1 letter paragraph 1 52 Document DB14 page 19C 53 Documents DB37 & DB14 pages 19B- 20A 54 Documents AM5 & AM6 16 expected pay. She said that at about that time Mr McCrea asked her to repay the £500 he had paid to her since she started paid employment. She agreed to this request and put in place a standing order. However, she cancelled that standing order after only £120 had been repaid. When questioned as to what any of this had to do with alleged financial impropriety on the part of Mr McCrea, Miss Murray said ‘I don’t know’.55

When interviewed on 8 December 2014 Mr McCrea produced extensive documentation relating to this complaint against him.56 He told me Miss Murray started paid work for him in July 2013. Like all other Members’ staff she was to be paid through the Assembly payroll. Her first payment through that payroll was not due to be made until 28 August 2013. That payment covered the last 2 weeks of July and the whole of August. It included £441.29 in respect of her work during July. Mr McCrea was abroad on holiday from 17 – 30 July when he became aware that Miss Murray was in financial difficulties. Whilst still abroad he arranged for one of his staff to issue a cheque for £183 payable to Miss Murray and drawn on his constituency account to assist her until she received her pay. Mr McCrea was clear that Miss Murray was aware that this amount was a loan to tide her over until she was paid through the payroll. Mr McCrea gave me an email from Miss Murray dated 18 September 2013 in which she states ‘On 28 August 2013 I was overpaid in my wages of £400. I will pay this back at the rate of £50 per month, start date of 26 September 2013.’ 57 Mr McCrea also produced to me on email he sent the following day to one of his staff, Suzanne Chalkley in which he sets out that there was no overpayment to Miss Murray but rather that she had been ’given an advance because she was being paid monthly. This was a gesture of goodwill by me. It was not some sort of administrative error. She was aware of this.’58 I was also provided with copies of Mr McCrea’s No2 bank account statements showing further payments of £183 to Miss Murray that were debited from the account on 1 August and 9 August 2013. Also provided was a copy of Miss Murray’s Assembly pay-slip dated 28 August 2013 which shows her

55 Document DB14 pages 15E-19B 56 Document DB28 57 Document BM2 58 Document BM2 17 receipt of £1,245.99 comprised of salary of £804.70 and back pay of £ 441.29.59 Mr McCrea handed me an email from Suzanne Chalkley to Miss Murray dated 2 October 2013 confirming that the total advanced to her was £549 and that to date she had repaid £50. It recommended the setting up of a monthly payment of £60 with a last payment of £69 to repay the balance.60 On 2 December 2013 Mr McCrea’s bank wrote to him confirming that a total of only £140 had been paid by Miss Murray.61 Mr McCrea told me that no further repayments had been made and that the balance of £409.00 remains due to him by Miss Murray.

Findings of fact Having considered all the evidence I found the following facts proved - 1. Between 17 July and 8 August 2013 Mr McCrea made cheque payments totalling £549 to Miss Murray to tide her over until she was paid through the Assembly pay-roll; 2. Miss Murray knew or ought to have known that these payments were a loan to be repaid in full when she was paid through the pay-roll; 3. Miss Murray has repaid only £140 of the sum due, leaving a balance of £409 due by her to Mr McCrea; 4. Mr McCrea did not attempt to engage Miss Murray in an attempt to obtain funds from his OCE; and 5. There was no reason why Miss Murray could not have made this complaint within one year from the date of the alleged events.

Reasoned decision Mr McCrea’s account of this matter is extensively documented in his own records, documents he obtained from the Assembly, his bank and from Miss Murray. It is further supported by documents provided to me by Miss Murray. I have no hesitation in accepting it as accurate. Miss Murray’s version at interview was confused and cannot be reconciled with the facts as demonstrated in the documentation. It is not credible that she was not fully

59 Document BM4 60 Document BM6 61 Document BM7 18 aware that the payments she received from Mr McCrea were a loan to be repaid when she received payment through the Assembly payroll. Nor is it credible that she believed that she had been overpaid when she received her first payment through that payroll: her pay slip showed clearly that the ‘extra’ £441.29 was in respect of arrears. Miss Murray was unable to provide any explanation for her allegation that these events had anything to do with any financial impropriety on the part of Mr McCrea. Indeed, far from evidencing any financial impropriety his part, the facts demonstrate Mr McCrea’s willingness to assist a new employee who was in financial difficulty. Even had I believed everything about this complaint that she told me at interview there would have been no evidence of a contravention of the Code. I do not believe that any reasonable person could have believed, as Miss Murray claimed she did, that there was anything improper about Mr McCrea’s actions. I do not accept the account she gave me at interview as honest.

Accordingly, I do not find it established that there was any misuse or attempted misuse of OCE by Mr McCrea as alleged in Mr McCallister’s complaint and by Miss Murray at interview.

Complaint 4 – Use of media to blacken Miss Murray’s name Complaint The complaint is that after allegations about improper conduct by Mr McCrea towards Miss Murray had appeared in the media he used the media in an attempt to blacken her name and so discredit her.

Complainant This complaint is made only by Miss Murray.

Evidence The evidence in relation to this complaint comes from Miss Murray and Mr McCrea and from documents provided by each of them and by the BBC.

19

When dealing with this allegation in her complaint document Miss Murray refers to two instances of use of the media by Mr McCrea, namely, an interview on the BBC programme ‘The View’ during which she states that Mr McCrea lied when he said that he knew nothing of the allegations against him and an interview he allegedly gave to the Sunday Life newspaper.62

This complaint was addressed during Miss Murray’s interview on 13 November 2014.63 At interview Miss Murray denied that Mr McCrea’s interview on ‘The View’ was any part of her complaint and said ‘I’m not annoyed about that so it doesn’t matter. It’s not my allegation. It’s not my complaint.’64 After a brief suspension of the interview to enable her to take advice from her solicitor Miss Murray confirmed that she no longer alleged that Mr McCrea had used the TV in an attempt to blacken her name.65 In view of Miss Murray’s unequivocal departure from this leg of her complaint it is unnecessary to consider it further.

The second leg of this complaint by Miss Murray is about the interview she alleges that Mr McCrea gave to the Sunday Life. He had, she alleged, approached the newspaper and given sensitive personal information about her which appeared in the article of 25 May 2014. She further alleged that the photographs that accompanied the article had been provided to the newspaper by Mr McCrea. According to Miss Murray the photograph showing her sitting beside Mr McCrea in an Aston Martin had been taken by him whilst he had cropped the photograph on the front page before giving it to the newspaper. He had, she said ‘cropped his mother out; he took her out and put us in to make it look as if there was something funny going on.’ Miss Murray helpfully provided me with a photocopy of the relevant parts of that newspaper.66 Miss Murray further alleged that Mr McCrea had contacted two other newspapers in an attempt to discredit her.67

62 Document AM2 paragraph 21 63 Document DB14 pages 6C-12B 64 Document DB14 page 7D-E 65 Document DB14 page 8D-E 66 Document AM7 67 Document DB14 pages 9A-12B 20

Although Miss Murray departed from her allegation that Mr McCrea had used his appearance on the View in an attempt to discredit her I questioned about these matters on 2 June 2015 when he denied any wrongdoing.68 He told me that on Election Day, 22 May 2014, when speaking with a journalist from the News Letter about another matter, he had been given a letter from Miss Murray setting out an allegation against him. Immediately after speaking to the journalist he had contacted his solicitor who, at once, sent a letter to the News Letter denying the allegations and warning of the consequences of publishing them. That letter does assert that Miss Murray is not a reliable witness.69 He had not leaked it to the media.

Mr McCrea denied having given the Sunday Life, or any other media outlet, personal information about Miss Murray.70 He told me that he had been contacted by a journalist from the Sunday Life who informed him that that the paper had found the transcript of the evidence Miss Murray had given to the DEL Committee on the internet and asked him to comment on her allegations against him. In response he provided the paper with a written statement which made no mention of any personal information relating to Miss Murray.71 72 When I interviewed him on 9 June 2014 Mr McCrea told me that all photographs he took were transferred automatically to his office computer and so were available to all staff, including Miss Murray, who had access to that computer.73

The BBC kindly provided me with a DVD of ‘The View’ from which it was clear that Mr McCrea did not assert that he knew nothing about the allegations against him as Miss Murray had originally alleged.74

Perusal of Hansard of the relevant DEL Committee, held nearly six months before the Sunday Life article, confirmed that Miss Murray had spoken of her

68 Document DB29 pages 12A-15A 69 Document BM29 70 Document DB29 pages 14C-15B 71 Document DB29 pages 14C-15B 72 Document BM30 73 Document DB29 pages 5C-6B 74 Document DB40 21

Later in her evidence she told the Committee of the support given to her by The Prince’s Trust including checking on her mental health.75

On searching the internet it was found that the DEL Committee was not the first occasion on which the personal information about Miss Murray had been put in the public domain with her knowledge. For example, a web posting in relation to her experience with the Prince’s Trust in 2012 speaks of

Similar information is given in at least two other web postings Further in her complaint document she states that she had given many speeches

It also transpired that the photograph of Miss Murray in an Aston Martin car had been put in the public domain by her some eight months before it was used by the Sunday Life.79

Findings of fact Having considered the evidence I found the following facts proved - 1. Miss Murray no longer alleges that when appearing on ‘The View’ broadcast on 22 May 2015 Mr McCrea attempted to blacken her name; 2. Mr McCrea did not leak the letter from his solicitors to the News Letter to the media;

75 Document DB4 pages 4 & 5

79 Document DB62 22

3. The only material that Mr McCrea provided to the Sunday Life was his written statement which gave no personal information about Miss Murray; 4. All the personal information about Miss Murray given in the Sunday Life article published on 25 May 2014 had been put in the public domain by her at least 20 months before that date; and 5. Mr McCrea was approached by other media outlets seeking his comments on the allegations against him. He gave no such comments.

Reasoned decision Miss Murray did not provide any evidence to support the only remaining leg of this complaint, namely, that Mr McCrea gave the Sunday Life personal information about her in an attempt to blacken her name. In the course of my investigation no evidence in support of her allegation was obtained: indeed, all the available evidence indicates that Miss Murray’s allegation is false.

The Sunday Life article does not quote Mr McCrea as giving any personal information about Miss Murray. The article refers to the evidence she gave to politicians about her background and mental health. That evidence was given, on a voluntary basis, to the Committee for Employment and Learning Mr McCrea denies having given any personal information to the newspaper. In any event all the information in question had been put in the public domain long before the Sunday Life article. At no time did Miss Murray assert that any of the information was incorrect. Even had I found that Mr McCrea had provided such information to the newspaper there would have been no breach of the Code. All he would have been doing was repeating accurate information that was already in the public domain.

I am not satisfied that any breach of the Code occurred.

Complaint 5 -Taking and possession of voyeuristic photographs Complaint

23

The complaint is that during a visit to Canada in 2013 Mr McCrea took voyeuristic photographs of a young lady, Jacquelyn Neglia, which he stored on his office computer.

Complainant This complaint is made by Mr McCallister but is referred to by Mr Patterson.80 81 Miss Neglia, the ‘victim’ of the alleged conduct has made no complaint about it.

Evidence The evidence in relation to this complaint comes principally from Miss Jacquelyn Neglia, and Mr McCrea together with documents produced by each of them or obtained from the Assembly secretariat.

In his complaint document Mr McCallister alleges that -  Mr McCrea made a visit to Canada in 2013 in his capacity as an MLA;  During that visit he met Jacquelyn Neglia, whom he had met in Northern Ireland the previous year, and offered her a job in his office at Parliament Buildings;  Mr McCrea, whilst acting in his capacity as an MLA, took a number of photographs of Miss Neglia;  These photographs were voyeuristic and were retained by Mr McCrea;  The ‘photographs violated Miss Neglia’s dignity and amounted to discrimination under Article 6 of the Sexual Discrimination Order’; and that  The photographs had ‘an adverse effect’ on Miss Neglia when she later ‘stumbled’ across them in the course of her work at Parliament Buildings.

In support of this complaint Mr McCallister submitted photocopies of three colour photographs.82 In his complaint document Mr McCallister makes clear

80 Document JMcC1 paragraphs 2(a)(4), 6 & 7(b)(5) & (6) 81 Document AP2 paragraph 10 82 Documents JMcC13A-C 24 that he has ‘no specific evidence’ of the subject matter of his complaint.83 It was, accordingly, unnecessary to interview him regarding this complaint.

Mr Patterson, in his complaint document, states that he is ‘aware that there may be a series of inappropriate and seriously intrusive photographs taken by Mr McCrea of Jacquelyn which if true might be considered voyeuristic and evidence of a sexual predator at work.’ 84 At interview Mr Patterson made clear that he had never seen the photographs and that in relation to them ‘all I have seen is what has been in the media’.85

Miss Neglia has now returned to live in Canada and was interviewed over the telephone. She told me that –  She first met Mr McCrea whilst in Northern Ireland on the Young Ambassadors’ programme in June 2012;  In August 2012 she again met Mr McCrea when he was on holiday in Toronto, Canada;  Whilst there Mr McCrea told her that there might be a job working for him the following year (i.e. 2013);  She started working for Mr McCrea at Stormont in 2013;  Whilst in Toronto Mr McCrea took a number of photographs of her;  She knew that he had taken some of these photographs but that she only realised that he had taken others when she saw them on a computer at Parliament Buildings in 2013;  She had no concerns about Mr McCrea having taken any of the photographs and would have given him permission to take all of them; and that  She was upset on finding the photographs she did not realise had been taken in a folder on Mr McCrea’s office computer that was open to a number of his staff.86

83 Document JMcC1 paragraph 6(a) 84 Document AP2 paragraph 10 85 Document DB12 page 19B-C 86 Document DB41 pages 1A-4C 25

At interview Mr McCrea told me that –  His visit to Canada had been in August 2012 and not in 2013 as asserted by Mr McCallister;  His visit was a holiday, it was not paid for out of OCE and was not made in any way in his capacity as an MLA;  Whilst in Toronto he had met with Miss Neglia and her family. He had first met her a few weeks earlier when she was on a programme in Northern Ireland;  Miss Neglia showed him round some of the sights of Toronto during which he took a large number of photographs some of which included Miss Neglia;  He believed that Miss Neglia was aware of him taking these pictures;  All the photographs of Miss Neglia showed her clothed. In none of them was she carrying out a private act;  All the photographs he took, including those taken during his trip to Canada, were transferred automatically and saved in a folder on his computer in Parliament Buildings;  A number of his staff had access to this folder; and that  The photocopy photographs showed images of Miss Neglia.87 The photographs had been cropped to exclude other material. The image of Miss Neglia had been enlarged: the images he took were ‘of much wider expanse’. The saved images had been deleted from his computer by a third party without his permission.88

The Assembly Office Cost Expenditure Reports giving details of expenditure from Mr McCrea’s OCE for 2012 – 13 and 2013-14 contain no entry in relation to a trip to Canada by Mr McCrea.89

Findings of Fact Having considered the evidence I find the following facts proved - 1. Mr McCrea visited Canada on holiday in August 2012;

87 Documents JMcC13A-C 88 Document DB29 pages 3A-6C 89 Documents DB7 & DB8 26

2. No part of that trip was funded out of his OCE; 3. Mr McCrea was not acting in his ‘capacity as an elected Member of the Assembly’ whilst on that trip; 4. Whilst in Canada he was shown some of the sights of Toronto by Jacquelyn Neglia whom he had first met a few weeks earlier when she was on a programme in Northern Ireland; 5. Whilst in Toronto Mr McCrea took a large number of photographs some of which were of, or included, Miss Neglia; 6. None of these photographs was voyeuristic; 7. The three ‘photographs’ submitted by Mr McCallister in support of his allegation were taken by Mr McCrea; 8. These three photographs have been heavily ‘doctored’ by a person unknown in a vain attempt to make them appear in some way improper; 9. Mr McCrea believed that Miss Neglia was aware of all photographs of, or including, her that he took. Miss Neglia either consented, or would have consented, to the taking of all such photographs; 10. All the photographs taken by Mr McCrea in Canada were, along with all other photographs taken by him, transferred automatically to a computer in his office at Stormont; 11. Miss Neglia along with Miss Murray and a number of other staff had access to that computer and to all the photographs stored on it; and that 12. Miss Neglia was upset when she found that the photographs of, or including, her taken by Mr McCrea in Toronto were stored on the computer.

Reasoned decision Mr McCallister’s complaint, which he made clear was based solely on information passed to him, is seriously flawed.90 It is apparent from the evidence of Miss Neglia and Mr McCrea that his visit to Canada was in 2012 not 2013 as Mr McCallister alleged. It is plain from the evidence of these witnesses that the visit was a holiday undertaken in a private capacity and that Mr McCrea was in no way acting in his capacity as an MLA. This is further

90 Document JMcC1 covering letter paragraph 1 and complaint document paragraph 1(a) 27 supported by the fact that no part of the cost of the trip was funded out of his OCE. It is further plain from the evidence of Miss Neglia and Mr McCrea that Mr McCallister’s complaint is again incorrect when he asserts that during the trip Mr McCrea offered Miss Neglia a job: it is clear that he did no more than tell Miss Neglia that he might have a job for her the following year. The serious allegation that Mr McCrea took voyeuristic photographs of Miss Neglia is without any basis in fact. Miss Neglia was clear, when she gave evidence, that her concern was not with the photographs taken but with finding out the following year that some photographs of which she was unaware were stored on Mr McCrea’s computer. It is apparent that the only three ‘photographs’ produced in support of the allegation have been heavily ‘doctored’ in an attempt to make them appear in some way improper. Even in this ‘doctored’ state they come nowhere near being voyeuristic. I accept Miss Neglia’s evidence that she was upset when she found, after starting work with Mr McCrea in summer 2013, that photographs taken by him in Canada, including photographs of her, were stored along with very many other photographs on his office computer. It is unfortunate that how the photographs would be stored was not explained to Miss Neglia at the time they were taken.

In light of the facts I have found proved it is clear that nothing that took place during Mr McCrea’s visit to Canada is within the scope of the Code as he was not acting in his ‘capacity as an elected Member of the Assembly.’

Even had I been satisfied that Mr McCrea’s conduct in Canada was within the scope of the Code I would have found the allegations relating to the taking of voyeuristic photographs to be without any basis in fact. I find it most disturbing that a complaint of such serious criminal conduct should have been made by Mr McCallister without any attempt to check the facts and without reporting the matter to the police.

I have also considered whether the upset caused to Miss Neglia when she found the stored photographs constituted a breach of the Code. I am satisfied that any failure by Mr McCrea to inform Miss Neglia, when she commenced employment with him, that photographs from Canada were stored on his office 28 computer and available for staff to view came nowhere near the high threshold required to breach the Respect principle or of any other provision of the Code.

Accordingly, I am not satisfied that any breach of the Code occurred.

Complaint 6 - Sexual misconduct towards Jacquelyn Neglia Complaint The complaint is that during the Sinn Fein Summer School 2013 Mr McCrea ‘groped’ Miss Neglia.

Complainant This complaint is made only by John McCallister MLA.91. Miss Neglia, the ‘victim’ of the alleged conduct has made no complaint about it.

Evidence The evidence in relation to this complaint comes principally from Jacquelyn Neglia and Mr McCrea together with documents produced by each of them or obtained from the Assembly secretariat or the internet.

In his complaint Mr McCallister states that ‘I became aware of a rumour in April/May of this year that Mr McCrea had allegedly groped Miss Neglia when she accompanied him on a business trip to Cork in August 2013. Mr McCrea was speaking at a Sinn Fein Summer School and was accompanied by , Conor Clements and .’ As it was plain from the terms of his complaint that Mr McCallister had no first-hand knowledge of the alleged incident I decided that interviewing him with regard to the matter would elicit no useful evidence and was unnecessary.

Miss Neglia has now returned to live in Canada. During her telephone interview she told me that –

91 Document JMcC1 paragraph 3(b)(1) 29

 A week after starting work for Mr McCrea in June 2013 she went with him, Conor Clements, and [a person otherwise unrelated to the complaints] to the Sinn Fein Summer School in Cork;  On the first night of that trip all of them went out for a drink;  On returning to their hotel, whilst someone was looking for the key, ‘he (Mr McCrea) grabbed my butt’;  She said nothing at the time but later that night told what had occurred;  Later that night she received a text from [a person otherwise unrelated to the complaints] asking her to join him in his bedroom. She did not reply to it; and that  This was the only occasion on which there was any ‘sexual kind of touching’ by Mr McCrea.92

When interviewed, Mr McCrea told me that –  On Friday 27 June 2014 he had travelled by car to the Sinn Fein Summer School near Cork along with Miss Neglia, , Conor Clements and ;  At that time these three persons were supporters of NI21;  Miss Neglia had started working for him at the start of that week;  He had been invited to speak at the event during the period that he was an independent MLA;  He had not been invited to attend as an MLA but rather as ‘a Unionist who had taken a particular stance’ on the flying of flags;  No part of the cost of the trip had been paid for out of his OCE;  He denied ‘any allegations of wrong doing of any sort’ towards Miss Neglia and had ‘no recollection of any such incident’; and that  had not raised the matter with him until an application from Miss Neglia for a new post within NI21 was under consideration.93

92 Document DB41 pages 4B-5B 93 Document DB29 page 7A et seq 30

Records obtained from the Assembly Secretariat confirmed Mr McCrea’s evidence that no part of the cost of the trip to Cork had been paid for out of his OCE.94

Information obtained from the internet showed that in the publicity material for the event Mr McCrea was described as ‘Basil McCrea MLA, Leader of Ireland’s newest Party NI21’.95 I noted also that, with the exception of Miss Neglia, those that accompanied Mr McCrea were closely connected with NI21.

Findings of Fact Having considered all the evidence I find the following facts proved – 1. On 28 and 29 June 2014 Mr McCrea attended and spoke at the Sinn Fein Summer School near Cork; 2. No part of the cost of that trip was paid for out of Mr McCrea’s OCE; 3. Mr McCrea was accompanied on the trip by Miss Neglia who had started work for him earlier that week; 4. He was also accompanied by three NI21 supporters; 5. Miss Neglia made no complaint to Mr McCrea about his alleged misconduct either at the time it is alleged to have occurred or at any time thereafter; and that 6. Mr McCrea attended the Summer School as a Unionist who had taken a stance on the flags issue and as the Leader of NI21 and not in his ‘capacity as an elected Member of the Assembly’.

Reasoned decision I am satisfied that the Code of Conduct applies to the conduct of Members whilst acting in that capacity wherever it occurs and that the fact that this alleged conduct is said to have taken place outside Northern Ireland is of no consequence.

On the facts I have found proved nothing done by Mr McCrea during the trip to Cork was within the scope of the Code as he did not undertake that speaking

94 Document DB8 95 Document DB6 31 engagement in his ‘capacity as an elected Member of the Assembly.’ I noted Mr McCrea’s evidence of why he was at the Summer School and that no part of the cost of the trip had been met from his OCE. I noted also that those who accompanied him, apart from Miss Neglia, were NI21 supporters. Having considered all the relevant material I was not satisfied that when he attended the Sinn Fein Summer School Mr McCrea could properly be said to have been acting in his ‘capacity as an elected Member of the Assembly’.

Even had I reached a different decision on the capacity in which Mr McCrea undertook that trip I would still have decided that the at the time of the alleged incident he was not acting in his ‘capacity as an elected Member of the Assembly’ and that his conduct was not within the scope of the Code. All the evidence is that the alleged misconduct took place late on the evening of the first day of the Summer School after the business of the day had concluded and while Mr McCrea and those who accompanied him were socialising. I am satisfied that if anything did occur, Mr McCrea was at the time acting in a private capacity. It follows that his alleged conduct is not within the scope of the Code.

In his complaint document Mr McCallister appears to advance the proposition that all conduct of a Member towards his or her staff or volunteers is within the scope of the Code.96 Adoption of that approach would have unintended and frankly absurd consequences. In the case of those Members who employ their spouse or other family member and pay for them out of their OCE it would result in every domestic dispute being within the scope of the Code! That cannot have been what the Assembly intended when it approved the Code. I do not think that the legislation and case law referred to assist in determining the correct interpretation of the Code.

I am clear that whether or not the conduct of a Member towards a member of his or her staff is within the scope of the Code must depend on the

96 Document JMcC1 paragraph 7 32 circumstances of each case. I have adopted that approach throughout this report.

Had I been satisfied that the alleged conduct was within the scope of the Code I would have had to decide whether I was satisfied that the alleged conduct had taken place and, if so, whether it constituted a breach of the Code. The only direct evidence of the alleged incident comes from Miss Neglia and Mr McCrea. Both appear to me to be giving what they believed was a truthful account of events. I cannot, on the basis of the evidence, be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that Mr McCrea behaved in the manner alleged by Miss Neglia.

I am not satisfied that any breach of the Code occurred.

Complaint 7 - Bullying and harassment of Jacquelyn Neglia Complaint The complaint is that Mr McCrea mistreated, bullied and harassed Jacquelyn Neglia.

Complainant This complaint is made by Mr McCallister and Mr Alan Patterson. Miss Neglia has made no complaint.

In his complaint document Mr McCallister states that he was aware that Miss Neglia had complained about and it appears that he has some personal knowledge of that part of this complaint. Because of the ongoing police investigation into his conduct it has not been possible for me to interview Mr McCallister about that matter. Accordingly, it is not possible, at this time, to complete my investigation into that aspect of this complaint. A further report will be submitted when the risk of prejudice to the police investigation has ended and it is possible to interview Mr McCallister.

33

Evidence The evidence in relation to the other aspects of this complaint comes principally from Mr Patterson, Miss Neglia and Mr McCrea.

In his complaint document Mr Patterson sets out a number of generalised allegations of misconduct towards staff, including Miss Neglia, by Mr McCrea.97 He also makes clear that he has discussed these allegations with some of the staff concerned including Miss Neglia and Miss Murray.98 He goes on to set out his detailed complaint regarding Mr McCrea’s alleged mistreatment of Miss Neglia. Mr Patterson alleges that –  Mr McCrea made comments to him about whether to continue Miss Neglia’s employment;  Mr McCrea appeared to object to Miss Neglia’s preparedness to query Mr McCrea’s actions; and that  Miss Neglia appeared to have personal concerns about Mr McCrea’s conduct.99

Mr Patterson told me that he worked, on a voluntary basis, for NI21 from July 2013 until 17 September 2013. For a period of about four weeks ending on 14 August 2013 he was the de facto Party Secretary and spent approximately two days per week at Stormont.100

When questioned about the first of his allegations Mr Patterson was clear that ‘Basil on one occasion or maybe even two occasions said that he was debating whether or not to keep this girl who had travelled all the way from Canada, taking a leap of faith, who had stopped her academic studying to facilitate him.’101

97 Document AP2 paragraph 8 98 Document AP2 paragraph 8 99 Document AP2 paragraph 10 100 Document DB12 pages 2A-3C 101 Document DB12 pages 19B-20C 34

In relation to the second of his allegations Mr Patterson accepted that Mr McCrea was the Party Leader, that Miss Neglia ‘was inexperienced and she would sometimes say things that were a bit foolish.’ When asked what was wrong with the Party Leader appearing to object to a young and inexperienced staff member querying his actions Mr Patterson offered no answer.102

In relation to his third allegation Mr Patterson stated that ‘I got the impression that it might be something to do with an inappropriate approach, but I have no direct knowledge of that.’103

When interviewed by telephone Miss Neglia told me in relation to Mr McCrea’s conduct towards her that –  During the World Police and Fire Games in August 2013 Mr McCrea had, with the agreement of Kirsty McClay, accompanied them to a pub in Belfast and that, although Miss McClay had agreed to Mr McCrea joining them, his presence had made her (Miss Neglia) feel ‘uncomfortable’;104  Mr McCrea had thrown a baseball at her which struck her when she interrupted a live radio interview he was giving on the telephone. He had apologised ‘right afterwards’ but the next day she was ‘scolded for messing up the interview’;105 and that  On several occasions Mr McCrea ‘made jokes about me sleeping around and made fun of me in front of other people.’ On one occasion Mr McCrea commented that she had slept with the whole Canadian hockey team at the World Police and Fire Games.106

Miss Neglia also spoke about the alleged breach by Mr McCrea . For the reasons given above, that will be the subject of a further report when it becomes possible to interview Mr McCallister.

102 Document DB12 pages 19B-20C 103 Document DB12 page 20A-B 104 Document DB 41 page 7B-C 105 Document DB41 pages 8C-9A 106 Document DB41 page 9A-C 35

Miss Neglia agreed that she had exchanged text messages with Ashleigh Murray and that Miss Murray had asked her ‘to help in digging up dirt on Basil.’ Miss Neglia had agreed to do so and told me that she thought she had given something to Miss Murray but could not remember what it was.107

Of the other witnesses I interviewed, other than Mr McCrea, only Connor Clements, Jamie Mackrell and Suzanne Chalkley said anything of significance relevant to this aspect of the complaint. Mr Clements told me of one occasion at Jordanstown when Mr McCrea had ‘tore into Jacquelyn in front of everybody about, you know, the way she had mucked up the day’.108 Mr Mackrell told me that ‘Jacquelyn and I were quite close, so we would have spoken and stuff’ but that he did not see any improper conduct by Mr McCrea towards Miss Neglia.109 Mrs Chalkley spoke of an occasion in Mr McCrea’s office when he had been ‘sharp’ with Miss Neglia and another staff member in front of a visitor. She considered this to be very poor people management.110 She spoke also of Miss Neglia ‘being a different type of person’ from the other staff and how ‘she would stand her ground’ and ‘give as good as she got.’111

Mr McCrea told me that –  He had discussed the advisability of continuing Miss Neglia’s employment;  He had accompanied Miss Neglia and Miss McClay to a pub in Belfast during the World Police and Fire Games. He had done so with their agreement;  He had, when she interrupted a live down the line radio interview, thrown a ball of paper, not a baseball, at Miss Neglia when she entered the room despite having been alerted not to do so. He had apologised to her and had spoken to her the following day about the need to be more careful;

107 Document DB41 page 13A-B 108 Document DB42 page 10B-C 109 Document DB13 page 9A-B 110 Document DB39 page 12C-F 111 Document DB39 pages 16F-17B 36

 He denied having made jokes about Miss Neglia sleeping around or sleeping with the entire Canadian hockey team at the World Police and Fire Games;  On Christmas day 2013 he had received an email from Miss Neglia in which she said ‘of all the gifts I received this year, having the chance to go to Northern Ireland and work at Stormont for you and NI21 has by far been the best’ and ‘I know we often fight but I am glad to have a boss that wants to hear my opinion, despite not always agreeing with it. I really value you as a boss and as a person and I cannot thank you enough for the opportunity you have given me this year’;112 and that  In January 2014 Miss Neglia had applied for the post of NI21 Youth Director.113 In that application she explained that when her initial contract came to an end in August 2013 she had sought, and been granted, an extension by Mr McCrea.

Information obtained from the Assembly Secretariat showed that Miss Neglia was employed by Mr McCrea and paid for out of his OCE from 24 June 2013 until 5 June 2014.114

Findings of Fact Having considered all the evidence I find the following facts proved - 1. Mr McCrea did not discuss in an inappropriate manner whether or not to continue the employment of Miss Neglia; 2. Mr McCrea did not object in an inappropriate way to Miss Neglia questioning his actions; 3. In August 2013 during the World Police and Fire Games Mr McCrea, with Miss McClay’s agreement, accompanied Miss Neglia and Miss McClay to a pub in Belfast. Nothing untoward occurred; 4. When he was interrupted by Miss Neglia whilst he was doing a live down the line radio interview Mr McCrea threw an object at Miss Neglia.

112 Document BM31 113 Document BM33 114 Document DB3 37

He apologised for doing so as soon as he finished the interview but reprimanded her the next day for interrupting the interview; 5. Mr McCrea did not allege that Miss Neglia was sexually immoral; 6. Despite Mr McCrea’s alleged misconduct towards her, Miss Neglia sought an extension to her employment in August 2013, sent him an email at Christmas 2013 praising him as her employer and in January 2014 she sought appointment as the NI21 Youth Director; 7. Less than three weeks after she left Mr McCrea’s employment Miss Murray advised Miss Neglia to ‘dig up the dirt’ on Mr McCrea; and 8. Alan Patterson worked, on a voluntary basis, for NI21 from mid July 2013 until 17 September 2013. For a period of about four weeks ending on 14 August 2013 he was the de facto Party Secretary. Whilst Party Secretary Mr Patterson spent approximately two days per week at Stormont.

Reasoned decision Given the very limited time Mr Patterson spent at Stormont during the short period that he worked there it is unsurprising that he knew little relevant to this complaint which was plainly based on rumour, innuendo and what he had been told by others.

Miss Neglia has made no complaint about Mr McCrea’s conduct towards her. Despite what is alleged about his conduct she sought and was granted an extension to her employment in August 2013 and sought a further extension in January 2014. I note also the email Miss Neglia sent to Mr McCrea on Christmas Day 2013 praising him as her employer. These actions are difficult to understand if Miss Neglia believed that Mr McCrea’s conduct was seriously inappropriate.

I am satisfied that Mr McCrea did discuss with others the desirability of continuing to employ Miss Neglia. There is no evidence to suggest that he did so in a way that was improper. As her employer and as the Party Leader it was natural for him to seek the views of others before deciding on whether to extend her period of employment. 38

Nor was there, on the basis of the available evidence, anything untoward in Mr McCrea taking exception to Miss Neglia querying his actions. Mr McCrea was her employer and the Party Leader. She was a young, junior and inexperienced member of staff who ‘sometimes said things that were a bit stupid’. Mr Patterson did not suggest that there was anything improper about the manner in which Mr McCrea objected and it is plain that Miss Neglia had no concerns in this regard. As Suzanne Chalkley told me Miss Neglia ‘would stand her ground’ and ‘give as good as she got.’

There is simply no evidence of anything that could constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct in respect to these two aspects of Mr Patterson’s allegation of misconduct by Mr McCrea towards Miss Neglia and they do not merit further consideration.

However, the evidence of Miss Neglia and Mr Clements lends some support to the generalised allegation of mistreatment of staff, including Miss Neglia made by Mr Patterson. Accordingly, I now consider each of the alleged incidents.

The facts are not in dispute regarding Mr McCrea accompanying Miss Neglia and Miss McClay to a pub in Belfast during the World Police and Fire Games. I am satisfied that Mr McCrea was there with the agreement Miss McClay. I do not doubt that Miss Neglia may have regretted that agreement. She did not allege that Mr McCrea did anything improper whilst at the pub or thereafter. Whilst it may be unusual and unwise for an employer such as Mr McCrea to engage socially with his young female employees, doing so most certainly does not, in itself, constitute a breach of any provision of the Code of Conduct.

The only dispute on the facts regarding the incident when Miss Neglia interrupted Mr McCrea whilst he was giving a live down the line radio interview is whether it was a baseball, as she asserts, or a ball of paper, as he asserts, that was thrown. There is no independent evidence to indicate which version is correct and I make no finding on that matter. It is accepted that an apology was given shortly afterwards and that Miss Neglia continued at work 39 immediately after the incident. It is common ground that she was rebuked the next day for interrupting the interview. I am not satisfied that any breach of the Code occurred.

Miss Neglia’s evidence that Mr McCrea made numerous ‘jokes’ about her sleeping around was denied by him. No other witness spoke of hearing such jokes which is surprising if they were as frequent as Miss Neglia alleged. I note that Mr Mackrell, who was ‘quite close’ to her did not mention any such conduct at interview. Even more noteworthy is Miss Neglia’s description of the alleged comments as ‘jokes’: she does not assert that Mr McCrea was impugning her morality. If such jokes were made as frequently as alleged, and I have considerable doubts about that, Miss Neglia should simply have made clear to Mr McCrea that she found them distasteful and ask him to stop.

Accordingly, I am not satisfied that any breach of the Code occurred in relation to the matters dealt with this report. A further report on the allegation of breach of confidentiality will be submitted as soon as practicable after the risk of prejudicing the police investigation into Mr McCallister’s conduct has ceased.

Complaint 8 - Misconduct towards Alan Patterson Complaint The complaint is that Mr McCrea breached the provisions of the Code of Conduct by -  Repeatedly making false allegations about and using threatening behaviour towards Mr Patterson;  Making false representations about Mr Patterson’s relationship with NI21 staff principally by providing false information to the News Letter; and by  Constant undermining behaviour of Mr Patterson’s position in NI21.115

115 Document AP2 paragraphs 22-29 40

Complainant This complaint is made only by Mr Patterson.

Evidence The evidence in relation to this complaint comes principally from Mr Patterson, Mr McCrea and Suzanne Chalkley and from documents produced.

At interview Mr Patterson told me that –  He had contacted Mr McCrea in March or April 2013 to offer his services in connection with the proposed party that was to become NI21;  He started work at Stormont on a voluntary basis in July 2013;  He was de facto Party Secretary of NI21 from shortly after starting work at Stormont until 14 August 2014;  He had never been in the paid employment of either Mr McCrea or NI21  When he first met Mr McCrea in the Europa Hotel he was asked whether he would be welcomed back in the Assembly;  On that, and on the three subsequent occasions on which Mr McCrea had asked whether he would be welcome back at the Assembly, Mr McCrea had claimed that Mr Patterson ‘had some sort of mental health problem or learning disability’, that he ‘had difficulty with dealing with staff and relationships with staff’, and that he ‘was bureaucratic’;  Mr McCrea was getting information about his (Mr Patterson’s) work at the Assembly from someone at the Assembly;  Mr McCrea raised the same issues during a meeting at Mr Patterson’s home;  He raised them again in the car park at Stormont in early July 2013 and that on that occasion Mr McCrea was ‘really aggressive and threatening’;  Mr McCrea raised the issues for a fourth time in the canteen at Stormont;

41

 His emails to Mr McCrea on 15 August 2013 and 10 September 2013 were the ones from which Mr McCrea had provided extracts to the News Letter;116  Mr McCrea had failed to give him a clear role;  Mr McCrea failed to develop policies;  Mr McCrea was more interested in social media than constituency work;  He had no intention of making a complaint about Mr McCrea until he learnt of the Carecall investigation;117 and that  He had stood down as Party Secretary and left NI21 because of Mr McCrea’s behaviour.

Mr McCrea denied the allegations made in the complaint and by Mr Patterson at interview. He told me that118 –  He was not an MLA during the time that Mr Patterson was working at the Assembly and that he had known nothing of Mr Patterson prior to his volunteering his services;  Shortly after Mr Patterson started working at the Assembly Mr McCrea had been made aware of some information about Mr Patterson’s work record there. He had asked Mr Patterson about it on one occasion. Mr Patterson had responded vehemently. He had declined a request from Mr Patterson to disclose the source of his information;  Mr Patterson had raised the matter with him on a number of further occasions but he had always declined to discuss it with Mr Patterson;  He first became aware of the details of Mr Patterson’s previous employment at the Assembly only when he received the email from Mr Patterson on 15 August 2013;119  Mr McCrea denied that there had been any incidents in the car park or the canteen as alleged by Mr Patterson;  Mr Patterson had appointed himself as Party Secretary a few days after starting work at Stormont and whilst Mr McCrea was on holiday. Mr

116 Documents AP13 & Ap15 117 Document AP2 118 Document 31 page 9B et seq 119 Document AP13 42

McCrea became aware of the ‘appointment’ only from a copy email sent by Mr Patterson;120  During the short time that Mr Patterson worked at Stormont he had few discussions with him as Mr Patterson only worked two days a week and both of them had been on holiday for a period;  The statement in Mr Patterson’s complaint document that he had been de facto Party Secretary until September 2013 was incorrect; Mr Patterson ceased all such duties following the meeting on 14 August 2013;  On the evening of 21 May 2014 he had been contacted by of the Newsletter and asked to respond to a number of allegations about him which Mr Patterson had made and which would be reported in an article to be carried the following day. In response he had provided with extracts from emails sent by Mr Patterson on 15 August and 10 September 2013.121 He had not ‘bad-mouthed’ Mr Patterson and would not have engaged with the News Letter had Mr Patterson not provided the material for the article;  Mr Patterson first said that he had resigned because of Mr McCrea’s behaviour in his complaint document. Prior to that Mr Patterson had given a number of different reasons for leaving; and that  Mr Patterson’s voluntary work was for NI21 and not for him as an MLA

Miss Neglia told me that although Mr Patterson talked about ‘being treated by Basil’ she never saw any improper conduct.122

Suzanne Chalkley told me that –  She did not recall Mr McCrea saying anything about Mr Patterson which she regarded as improper;  Mr McCrea might have made ‘tongue in cheek type comments’ about Mr Patterson being bureaucratic;

120 Document BM34 121 Documents AP13 7& AP15 122 Document DB41 page 6C 43

 Mr Patterson ‘was a very detailed person whereas Basil, you know, the management skills would not have been as, kind of, detailed in that respect’; and that  Mr Patterson had complained about Mr McCrea’s management style but only after he had stopped working at Stormont;123

In her complaint document Miss Murray states ‘when Mr Patterson came on board Mr McCrea thought he was the answer to everything; he praised him constantly and told us he would bring structure to us. During Mr Patterson’s ‘employment’ I witnessed him struggle to do his job, this was not due to Mr Patterson’s ability but because of lack of communication, co-operation, structure and clarity from Mr McCrea. Mr McCrea’s attitude toward him changed quite soon. He would say things like Mr Patterson wasn’t to be trusted. He couldn’t do his job properly and staff didn’t like him. This was not the case….’.124 Because I have been unable to conduct a second interview of Ashleigh Murray it has not been possible to explore this aspect of her statement and to assess the weight that should be attached to it. .

Records of the Assembly Commission confirmed the thrust of Mr Patterson’s statement that –  He had been employed at the Assembly as a Principal Clerk; 

123 Document DB39 pages12A-13B 124 Document AM2 paragraph 15

. 44

None of the other witnesses provided any useful evidence in relation to this complaint.

Findings of fact Having considered all the evidence I found the following facts proved – 1. Mr Patterson worked at Stormont as a volunteer for NI21 for a period of about eight weeks ending on 14 August 2013; 2. During that period he was present at Stormont for on average two days each week; 3. Mr Patterson was never in the paid employment of either by McCrea or NI21. No payments were made to him out of either Mr McCrea’s OCE or the NI21 FAPP; 4. During the short period that Mr Patterson worked at Stormont NI21 lacked structure; 5. Mr Patterson assumed the role of Party Secretary and described himself as such; 6. Mr McCrea had no knowledge of the difficulties experienced by Mr Patterson whilst a Principal Clerk at the Assembly until they were mentioned to him by a third party around the time Mr Patterson started as a volunteer; 7. Shortly after he became aware of these difficulties, Mr McCrea raised the matter in conversation with Mr Patterson. When asked by Mr Patterson, Mr McCrea declined to disclose the source of his information; 8. All interaction between Mr McCrea and Mr Patterson in relation to the latter’s work at the Assembly were undertaken by Mr McCrea in his capacity as the Leader of NI21 and not in his capacity as an MLA; 9. Mr Patterson did not stand down as de facto Party Secretary or cease his work as a volunteer due to the alleged misconduct of Mr McCrea towards him; 10. In response to a request from the Newsletter to comment on information about him provided by Mr Patterson Mr McCrea provided the newspaper with extracts from two emails; and that 11. Mr Patterson decided to complain of Mr McCrea’s alleged conduct towards him when he became aware of the Carecall investigation. 45

Reasoned decision In considering this complaint it is important to note that Mr Patterson worked at Stormont as a volunteer only for a total of approximately ten days over a period of four to five weeks. I am satisfied from the evidence that he worked almost exclusively on NI21 party matters and that he had little or no role in relation to Mr McCrea’s work as an MLA rather than as the Leader of that party. In particular I am satisfied that in relation to the matters of which Mr Patterson complains Mr McCrea was acting wholly as the Party Leader and not in his capacity as an MLA. It follows that even had I been satisfied that any misconduct by Mr McCrea had been established there would have been no breach of the Code.

I am not satisfied that Mr McCrea repeatedly make false allegations about and using threatening behaviour towards Mr Patterson as he alleged in leg one of this complaint. Mr McCrea denies the allegation. If Mr McCrea’s conduct was as alleged I find it surprising that no other witness appears to have noticed it. It is also surprising that Mr Patterson mentioned the alleged misconduct for the first time when he made his complaint in July 2014. He made no mention of any such allegation in his email to Mr McCrea about his new role on 15 August 2013126, in his email to Mr McCrea withdrawing from further involvement in NI21 on 10 September 2013127 or even in his tweet of 7 March 2014 in which he said ‘I resigned as Party Secretary because Basil promotes himself, does not countenance other opinions and is an empty vessel’.128 Nor it appears did he mention this allegation to the Newsletter when he spoke to prior to the article on 22 May 2014. In that article Mr Patterson is reported as saying ‘In terms of why I left I had a growing perception in terms of Basil’s conduct that his behaviour towards staff was not at a level that I would expect from … the leader of a Party’.129 When asked at interview about why he had not mentioned this allegation in either of the two emails Mr Patterson gave a

126 Document AP13 127 Document AP15 128 Document BM44 129 Document BM45 46 less than convincing response.130 I note also that Mr Patterson’s assertion in his complaint document that he stood down as Party Secretary in September 2013 does not accord even with the evidence that he gave at interview where he was clear that he stepped down following the discussion with Mr McCrea on 14 August 2013 about a new role. August 2013131 132. Even had this leg of Mr Patterson’s complaint been admissible, I would not have accepted his evidence as reliable.

The second leg of this complaint by Mr Patterson is that ‘Mr McCrea provided false representations in a Newsletter article dated 22 May 2014, by submitting for publication selected extracts from two emails from me to him purported (sic) to indicate that NI21 staff had problems with me and that this was the reason I left.’133 It is common ground that Mr McCrea did provide the Newsletter with comments from the emails he had been sent by Mr Patterson on 15 August 2013 and 10 September 2013.134 I accept that Mr McCrea did so when he was asked by to comment on information provided to the journalist by Mr Patterson. In these emails Mr Patterson sets out the reasons why he stepped down as the de facto Party Secretary and then from his new policy role. These reasons were plainly not the ones Mr Patterson had given to some eight months later. I do not accept that Mr McCrea did anything in anyway improper in providing the News Letter with the emails setting out what Mr Patterson had said on previous occasions about his reasons for leaving. In any event I am satisfied that when providing the emails Mr McCrea was not acting in his capacity as an MLA. He was responding to information given by a person who had worked, on a voluntary basis, for NI21. That information was about why that person no longer worked for NI21. It follows that even had I been satisfied that any misconduct by Mr McCrea had been established there would have been no breach of the Code.

130 Document DB12 pages 11C-12C 131 Document AP2 paragraphs 1 & 24 132 Document DB12 page 7B-C 133 Document AP2 paragraph 29 134 Documents AP13 & AP15

47

The third leg of this complaint is that Mr McCrea constantly undermined Mr Patterson’s position in the party.135 It is, in light of the evidence now available, clear that even if I had been satisfied that such conduct had taken place, which I was not, it would have been an internal NI21 party matter and not the conduct of Mr McCrea in his capacity as an MLA. I would not have found that the conduct, even if established, was in breach of any provision of the Code. But in any event the allegation was denied by Mr McCrea and there is insufficient evidence in support of the allegation to give me any reason to doubt the credibility of that denial.

Accordingly, I am not satisfied that any breach of the Code occurred

Complaint 9 – Sexual misconduct towards Ashleigh Murray Complaint The complaint is of inappropriate sexual conduct by Mr McCrea towards Miss Murray.

In her complaint document Miss Murray sets out three instances of alleged misconduct as follows –  During April 2013 at La Mon Hotel Mr McCrea made advances towards her but no sexual contact took place;136  On or about 9 April 2013, whilst driving his car near to in , Mr McCrea rubbed her leg repeatedly as a result of which his manner of driving caused the police to stop and breathalyse him;137 and that  On unspecified dates at unspecified locations Mr McCrea ‘would make advances on me and feel bum, legs etc. He would make sexual comments about me.’138

135 Document AP12 paragraph 22 136 Document AM2 paragraph 13 137 Document AM2 paragraph 12 138 Document AM2 paragraph 19 48

Complainants The complainants are Miss Murray139 and Mr McCallister140. Alan Patterson, who does complain of other alleged conduct of Mr McCrea towards Miss Murray, makes no complaint of sexual misconduct.

Evidence Both in his complaint document141 and in his covering letter142 Mr McCallister makes clear that he has no direct knowledge of the subject matter of his complaint and that he has relied entirely on what he was told by Miss Murray when he met her on 14 May 2015. In these circumstances I did not consider it necessary to interview Mr McCallister regarding his complaint.

The information in support of this complaint comes only from Miss Murray’s complaint document dated 7 August 2014 submitted in support of this and her other complaints.143 I have been unable to interview Miss Murray regarding her serious allegations because of her alleged unfitness to attend for interview. I have given careful consideration to whether I can properly accept that complaint document as evidence of the matters contained in it. I have concluded that I can and should. What is contained in that statement is the best available evidence of what Miss Murray alleges took place.

However, although I have accepted that document in evidence the weight that can properly be attached to it is a quite separate issue. That evidence, unlike the evidence of the other witnesses, was not given on oath nor has it been tested at interview. That has deprived Miss Murray of the opportunity to add detail to her allegations which might have strengthened her case. But it has also meant that it has not been possible to question her about inconsistencies between the account of these alleged events given in that document and other accounts of them that she has given. Nor have I been able to ask her why her account of these incidents should be believed when her account of other

139 Document AM2 paragraphs 9, 12 & 13 140 Document JMcC1 paragraph 3(a) 141 Document JMcC1 paragraph 3(a)(1) 142 Document JMcC1 letter paragraph 1 143 Document AM2 paragraphs 9, 12 & 13 49 matters has been found to be, at best, unreliable. It has also meant that I have been unable to put to her, and have her response to, other evidence relevant to this complaint that has emerged in the course of my investigation. In these circumstances, I believe that it would be wrong in principle to accord Miss Murray’s complaint document the same weight as the sworn and tested evidence of the other witnesses.

The other evidence relevant to this complaint comes principally from other statements made by Miss Murray144, and the sworn testimony of Karen Tabahe,145 Suzanne Chalkley146 and Mr McCrea.147 Also significant is a text Miss Murray sent Mr McCrea on leaving his employment on 1 November 2013. In that texts she said ‘It really broke my heart to leave’ and Thank you sooooo (sic) much for everything, you took a chance on me when I needed and ill (sic) never forget it :) x.’ It is hard to reconcile the sending of that text with the allegations made in relation to this and Miss Murray’s other complaints against Mr McCrea.148

It is common ground between Miss Murray and Mr McCrea that on or about 9 April 2013 he give her a lift home in his car following an evening meeting with a third party in Belfast. Mr McCrea was clear that the meeting was to discuss NI21 related matters. There is no contrary evidence. At that time Miss Murray was undertaking work on a voluntary basis: she was not employed by Mr McCrea. Mr McCrea and Miss Murray were the only persons in his car. Near to Mr McCrea was pulled over by the police due to the manner of his driving. He was breathalysed and provided a negative test. He then drove Miss Murray home.

In her complaint document Miss Murray alleges that when the car was close to the Mr McCrea started to rub her leg and that this conduct

144 Document DB37 145 Document DB26 pages 6C-7A & 9B-11A 146 Document DB39 pages 16A-20E 147 Document DB29 pages 16C-22A & DB32 page 2C-F 148 Document DB36 50 continued until he was stopped by the police. She asserts that because of his conduct he drove the car ‘across the white lines several times’ and that as a result the police stopped the vehicle.149

However, in his complaint document Mr McCallister gives a much more vivid account of the alleged incident when he states ‘during that journey Mr McCrea was groping her legs to the point of distracting him from driving, causing him to swerve all over the road. It was so bad it drew attention to a Police car that subsequently stopped him and asked him to submit to a breathalyser test.’150 Mr McCallister states that he is ‘willing to swear under oath’ that it is ‘a true an accurate reflection’ of what Miss Murray told him when they met, more than a year after the alleged event, on 14 May 2014.151

The only other evidence in relation to this leg of this complaint comes from Mr McCrea. He told me that in April 2013 Miss Murray had accompanied him to two meetings about NI21 business in Belfast city centre. After the meetings he gave Miss Murray a lift home to her house in the . He was stopped by the police because he had ‘pulled out in front’ of a police car near to He denied any allegation of wrongdoing in relation to Miss Murray. He pointed out that during the 6 to 10 minutes that the car had been stopped Miss Murray made no complaint to the police about his conduct. Rather she had remained in the car and had been driven home by him. She had continued to accept lifts from him after this alleged incident.152

La Mon In April 2013, whilst Miss Murray was working on a voluntary basis, a two day ‘brainstorming/get to know you’ meeting was held at La Mon Hotel to discuss the formation of NI21. Some of those attending, including Mr McCrea, stayed overnight whilst others, including Miss Murray, went home after the first day and returned to the hotel the following morning.

149 Document AM2 paragraph 12 150 Document JMcC1 paragraph 3(a)(6) 151 Document JMcC1 paragraph 3(a)(1) 152 Document DB29 pages 16C-18C 51

In her complaint document dated 7 August 2014 Miss Murray states ‘during April 2013 Mr McCrea held a meeting in La Mon for likeminded people to gather and discuss the new political party. After the meeting was over a lot of alcohol was consumed. Mr McCrea made advances towards me. I put this down to ill-judgement and alcohol consumption. No sexual contact took place. That night I left and went home.’153

However, Miss Murray has given a number of different accounts of this alleged incident. In a written statement apparently made on 17 May 2014, some 12 weeks before her complaint document, she said ‘during April time of 2013 Mr McCrea held a meeting in La Mon Hotel for likeminded people to gather and discuss the new political party. After the meeting was over a lot of drink was consumed. Mr McCrea asked me to get something from his room, when I went up to his room he followed. Mr McCrea made advances on me and came towards me with his pants round his ankles. Mr McCrea managed to pull down my tights. I told Mr McCrea ‘no’ and he stopped. I put this down to ill- judgement and alcohol consumption. No sexual intercourse took place.’154

The draft note of her interview with Carecall the following day is broadly the same except that it appears that she said also that Mr McCrea had ‘pulled up her dress.’155

According to Mr McCallister, Miss Murray told him on 14 May 2014 ‘after the formal discussions had concluded for the day a group of participants, including Mr McCrea and Miss Murray, were socialising when Mr McCrea asked Miss Murray to go up to his room to retrieve something. At some stage while she was in the room Mr McCrea came in, his trousers were down and his genitals were on display. He approached Miss Murray and was able to grab her tights and pull them down. Miss Murray made clear that she was unhappy and did not consent to the action. She told him she was not interested in his advances and he stopped. At the time Miss Murray put it down to poor judgement on his

153 Document AM2 paragraph 13 154 Document DB37 155 Document DB48 paragraph 3.11 52 part due to his consumption of alcohol but she was and still is somewhat upset by the incident.’156

According to Karen Tabahe, Miss Murray told her in September 2013 about the alleged incident at La Mon Hotel in April 2013. Miss Murray told her then that Mr McCrea had asked her to get something from his car and bring it to his room. When Miss Murray came to the room Mr McCrea asked her 'to massage his shoulders’. Karen Tabahe was sure that no mention was made by Miss Murray of Mr McCrea having his trousers down or of pulling down her pants and lifting her skirt. Miss Tabahe, , said that had any such allegation been made by Miss Murray she would have gone to the police with her. I note that this is the earliest version of the alleged incident given by Miss Murray and the one which is by far the least graphic.157

Suzanne Calkley was one of those who stayed overnight a La Mon. She told me that after dinner Miss Murray had learned by means of a telephone call that her dog was ill. This had upset her and she had gone home. Miss Murray had never said anything to her about Mr McCrea’s conduct at La Mon Hotel. Mrs Chalkley was clear that Miss Murray had never told her any of the versions of the incident given by her on other occasions and set out above. Mrs Chalkley said that when she read the account of this alleged incident in the media ‘it didn’t ring true’ and that she did not think Miss Murray’s demeanour that evening was consistent with what she later alleged had taken place.158

Mr McCrea denied that anything of an improper nature had taken place at La Mon Hotel. He said ‘Miss Murray has made very specific allegations, and I absolutely deny them. What I can tell you in relation to that is that the meeting finished at around about 5.00 pm. The only bits of information that were needing to be looked after would have been my laptops. There were no files or folders or whatever. I went up to my room to deposit my laptop. Miss Murray offered or asked could she leave her bag up in my room because, obviously,

156 Document JMcC1 paragraphs 3(a)(1)-(5) 157 Document DB26 page10A-11A 158 Document DB39 pages 16C-21D & 27D-28C 53 she didn’t have a room to put it in. I said yes. We went up to the room. I guess that was around about 5.30 pm. As dinner was 7.30 pm, from memory, there was a bit of time where we chatted about things and we were there in the room. I can say categorically that there was no wrongdoing. Absolutely nothing happened that could be in any way considered to be wrong. That is all I can tell you about that. If I probably - maybe you want to ask me another question - but there was a second incident. We went down together to dinner. We had dinner with everybody, talked as normal. Around about 10.30 pm, something of that ilk, Miss Murray got a phone call saying that her dog was ill. She seemed a little upset about this and she wanted to go home. I offered to get her a taxi. She said there was no problem that somebody was going to come and pick her up. Obviously, her bag was still in my room, so I accompanied her up to my room, which was actually some distance away – it is quite a big hotel – collected her bag, took her back to reception. Her lift came and took her away. I don’t know who the lift was, but it took her home and I went back and re-joined the group and we spent the rest of the night.’ Mr McCrea further stated that he understood that the police had given Miss Murray an opportunity to make a statement regarding the alleged incident but that she had declined to so do. The police had not approached him about the alleged incident.159

Because it has not been possible to interview Miss Murray regarding this complaint I have been unable to ask her for an explanation of the differing accounts of it that she has given. In particular I would have been interested to learn why her first account of the incident she gave to Karen Tabahe is so markedly less graphic than her later accounts. Nor have I been able to ask her why if Mr McCrea behaved as she alleges she not only returned to the hotel the following day but returned to work as normal the day after that. Nor have I been able to ask her why she apparently did not report the alleged incident to the police.

Sexual advances and comments

159 Document DB29 pages 18C-22A 54

In her complaint document Miss Murray asserts that on unspecified dates, starting about two weeks after she started working for him and ending in ‘approx May/June time’ at unspecified locations Mr McCrea ‘on many occasions made advances, stroked my leg, commented about my bottom’ and ‘would make sexual comments about me.’160

It is surprising, even allowing for the nature of the alleged misconduct, that there is no independent evidence to support Miss Murray’s allegations. It is unsurprising, given the lack of specification, that Mr McCrea was able to do more that give a general denial of any such misconduct.161

Findings of fact Having considered all the evidence I found the following facts proved – 1. On or about 9 April 2013 Mr McCrea gave Miss Murray a lift home in his car following NI21 meetings in Belfast City centre; 2. Near to he was stopped by the police due to the manner of his driving and provided a negative sample of breath; 3. Miss Murray remained in his car for the period it was stopped. She made no complaint to the police about his conduct; 4. In April 2013 Mr McCrea, Miss Murray and a number of other supporters of the NI21 concept attended a two day event at La Mon Hotel; 5. After business was ended on the first day Miss Murray learned that her dog was ill and went home. She returned to La Mon Hotel the next day; 6. The first occasion on which Miss Murray made any complaint about Mr McCrea’s conduct at La Mon Hotel was in September 2013 when she alleged that Mr McCrea had asked her to massage his shoulders. Thereafter Miss Murray gave a number of different accounts of what she alleges took place; 7. Miss Murray started paid employment by Mr McCrea in July 2013. Her wages were paid for from his OCE; 8. Miss Murray ought reasonably to have made this complaint no later than 1 July 2014. She made it on 7 August 2014; and

160 Document AM2 paragraphs 9 & 19 161 Document DB29 page 25C 55

9. On the day she left Mr McCrea’s employment Miss Murray sent him a text making no mention of any alleged misconduct towards her and thanking him for everything he had done for her.

Reasoned decision The alleged incidents at and La Mon Hotel took place more than a year before the date on which Miss Murray ought reasonably to have submitted any complaint about them. Her complaint, insofar as it relates to these alleged incidents, is therefore not admissible. However, Mr McCallister appears only to have learnt of these alleged incidents when he met Miss Murray on 14 May 2014. His complaint was made on 3 August 2014 well within the one year time limit. I welcome the intention of the Committee to address this anomaly in the proposed new General Procedures Direction.

I am satisfied that at the time of the alleged incidents at and La Mon Hotel Mr McCrea was not acting in his capacity as an elected Member of the Assembly. At he was giving a volunteer a lift home after attending two meetings in relation to NI21. The event at La Mons Hotel was an NI21 event. It had nothing to do with Mr McCrea’s role as an MLA. At the time of both alleged incidents he was acting either in his role as the Leader to be of NI21 or in a private capacity. The allegations are about conduct which, even if it was established, could not constitute a breach of the Code.

The third leg of this complaint of sexual misconduct (sexual advances and comments) is more problematic. Because the complaint gives no specification of the circumstances of the alleged acts of misconduct it is not possible to determine the precise date when this conduct is said to have occurred, the place or places where it is said to have occurred or the capacity in which Mr McCrea was acting at the relevant times. Mr McCrea denied any wrongdoing and so plainly was unable to assist in that regard. In these circumstances it would be inappropriate to rule that this third complaint is not admissible. The only evidence regarding the dates of these alleged acts comes in Miss Murray’s complaint document were she states that ‘This started from about two

56 weeks after I started working for him until approx May/June time.’162 The reference to ‘two weeks after I started working for him’ must relate to Miss Murray starting to work for Mr McCrea on a voluntary unpaid basis because it is clear that she did not start paid employment until mid-July 2013. She appears to have started work as a volunteer in spring 2013. She left his employment on 1 November 2013 so the ‘May/June’ referred to must be May/June 2013. It is clear, therefore, that Miss Murray alleges is that this misconduct took place prior to July 2013 and so more than a year before she submitted her complaint on 7 August 2014. When asked at interview whether there was any reason why she could not have submitted her complaint document by November 2013 at latest she replied, in the presence of her solicitor, that there was not.163 By then she had left Mr McCrea’s employ and making a complaint could have no adverse impact on her job. No reasonable explanation was given by her of why she did not make her complaint within one year after the date of the events complained of. In light of the evidence now available I am satisfied that all three legs of this complaint by Miss Murray are not admissible. However, because of the current text of the General Procedures Direction Mr McCallister’s complaint which was submitted more than a year after the alleged events is admissible because he learned of these events only on 14 May 2014.

The only evidence in support of the complaints comes from Miss Murray herself in the form of her unsworn complaint document. For the reasons given less weight falls to be afforded to that evidence than to the sworn and tested evidence from other sources. Even if I had accepted Miss Murray complaint document as a credible and reliable source of evidence I would not have been satisfied, in light of the conflicting sworn testimony, that her allegations had been established. But I was not satisfied that Miss Murray was either a credible or reliable source of evidence. In reaching that view I have had regard to a number of factors including –  Her failure to make any complaint about the subject of this complaint for more than a year;

162 Document AM2 paragraph 19 163 Document DB13 page 5D-E 57

 The widely differing accounts of the alleged incident at La Mon Hotel she has given;  Her lack of reliability and credibility in relation to those other matters in her complaint document on which it was possible to take her sworn evidence;  The plain nonsense of other statements made by her in her complaint document, for example, that Mr McCrea ‘betrays the trust of the UK Government’ and ‘every member of parliament should be ashamed to work alongside him;’164 and  The false information she appears to have given to her GP regarding being interviewed by the Standards and Privileges Committee.

Although it appears highly probable that Miss Murray was the primary source of the false account of her interview given to the Assembly by I have taken no account of that matter in reaching my view on her credibility and reliability.

I found Mr McCrea’s evidence in relation to this complaint credible. In relation to La Mon his account, rather than the version given by Miss Murray in her complaint document, is supported by the sworn evidence of Suzanne Chalkley. In relation to the alleged sexual advances and comments it is surprising, if they were as frequent as Miss Murray suggests, that there is so little independent evidence of them. It is also most surprising that if Mr McCrea conducted himself as she alleges, that Miss Murray, when she left Mr McCrea’s employment, sent him a text thanking him for all he had done for her and saying that it broke her heart to leave.

Accordingly I am not satisfied that any breach of the Code occurred.

Complaint 10 - Misconduct towards Karen Tabahe

Complaint

164 Document AM2 paragraph 8 58

The complaint is that Mr McCrea bullied and harassed Karen Tabahe. Whilst bullying and harassment is not in itself a breach of the Code it could, depending on its degree, constitute a breach of the Respect principle and perhaps other provisions of the Code..

Complainants This complaint is made by Alan Patterson165 and John McCallister.166

Evidence The evidence comes, in the main, from Mrs Tabahe herself,167 Fiona McAteer,168 Annette Holden,169 Jamie Mackrell,170 Suzanne Chalkley,171 Kathy Wilson172 and Mr McCrea173 together with documents provided by the Assembly Secretariat. On almost all key points the evidence of all the witnesses is almost identical and I do not set out the separate evidence of each witness on the matter.

Mr McCallister makes clear that apart from one incident that he witnessed he has no direct knowledge of the alleged misconduct specified in his complaint document. Due to the ongoing PSNI investigation into his conduct it has not been possible to interview Mr McCallister about that one alleged incident. However, Mr McCrea in a large part accepts what Mr McCallister says in his complaint document about that incident. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the evidence from other witnesses about what occurred. In these circumstances I did not consider it necessary to delay my investigation to enable me to interview Mr McCallister about that one incident.

Findings of Fact Having considered all the evidence I found the following facts proved -

165 Document AP2 paragraph 8 166 Document JMcC2 paragraph 4(b) 167 Document DB26 168 Document DB44 169 Document DB33 170 Document DB13 171 Document DB39 172 Document DB50 173 Documents DB31 pages 2A-B & DB49 pages 1C-6B 59

1. Karen Tabahe started paid employment, in a secretarial capacity, for Mr McCrea in 2009 and continues to be so employed by him. She is paid for out of his OCE; 2. The period from February 2013 until mid-April 2013 was a particularly hectic and stressful one both for Mr McCrea and Mrs Tabahe due to the additional work arising from the forthcoming creation of NI21. Mrs Tabahe found it difficult to adjust to the new duties expected of her. She was also under pressure in relation to issues unconnected with her work; 3. During that period Mr McCrea, on a number of occasions, shouted at Mrs Tabahe in an inappropriate manner due to errors she had made in keeping his diary. On all but one of these occasions he apologised for his conduct almost immediately and ‘no real harm was taken’174; 4. On 16 April 2013 a meeting to discuss the forthcoming ‘brainstorming/get to know you’ event at La Mon Hotel took place in Mr McCrea’s office at Stormont; 5. The purpose of that meeting was to sort out the arrangements for the event over which there had been a degree of confusion; 6. In the course of that meeting Mr McCrea shouted at Mrs Tabahe in an inappropriate manner causing her distress; 7. On 17 April 2013 Mrs Tabahe was unfit for work due to stress. She returned to work after an absence of three weeks; 8. Mr McCrea, Mr McCallister, Mrs Tabahe and Fiona McAteer were amongst those present; 9. Mrs Tabahe continued to work for Mr McCrea until just before Christmas 2013 when she [was absent from work for reasons] unrelated to her work; 10. She was [unable to return to work] until 17 February 2014; 11. Shortly after her return to work she met with Mr McCrea with the intention of explaining how his conduct had affected her and handing in

174 Document DB26 page 3B-C 60

her notice. At that meeting both parties spoke of their concerns and apologised for their errors; 12. Following the meeting Mrs Tabahe decided to continue her employment with Mr McCrea. She continues to work for him and has had no problems since then;175 13. Mrs Tabahe has never made a complaint that Mr McCrea breached any provision of the Code of Conduct; 14. On 10 September 2014, after she became aware that others had made a complaint about Mr McCrea’s conduct towards her, Mrs Tabahe wrote to me making clear that she did not wish to make a complaint against Mr McCrea and that any employment issues had been ‘resolved to my satisfaction’.176 No pressure was put on Mrs Tabahe to write that letter; 15. The conduct and events referred to in Findings 4 to 7 above were known to Mr McCallister when they occurred. There is no reason why he could not have made a complaint about them within the period of one year specified in the General Procedures Direction; and 16. Mr Patterson did not start work at Stormont until after the date on which all the matters of which Mr McCallister complains are alleged to have occurred. He could have no direct knowledge of them.

Reasoned decision All the conduct complained of took place over a period of around 10 weeks ending on 16 April 2013. I accept Mrs Tabahe evidence that ‘no real harm was taken’ by the instances of shouting prior to the meeting on 16 April 2013. Mrs Tabahe accepted that she had made errors and Mr McCrea accepted that his reaction had been inappropriate. It is plain that he apologised for that conduct almost immediately. Whilst his conduct was not excusable it was to some extent understandable given the pressure under which both he and Mrs Tabahe were working during that short period. I am not satisfied that this admitted conduct was in breach of the Code.

175 Document DB26 page 12B-C 176 Document DB4A 61

The meeting on 16 April 2013 was to discuss the arrangements for the NI21 ‘brainstorming/get to know you event’ at La Mon Hotel. John McCallister was there because of his interest in NI21 not as a constituency MLA. Basil McCrea was there in an NI21 capacity and not in his capacity as an MLA. I am satisfied that when he shouted at Miss Tabahe Mr McCrea was not acting in his capacity as a Member of the Assembly and that, accordingly, his conduct was not within the scope of the Code.

There was no reason why Mr McCallister could not have made his complaint about events on 16 April 2013 when they occurred or at any rate well before the expiry of the one year time limit specified in paragraph 3.2(h) of the General Procedures Direction. He did not make his complaint until 3 August 2014. The existence of the Carecall investigation cannot provide a reason for delaying the submission of his complaint. That investigation could never have resolved any Code of Conduct issues. And in any event that investigation was not initiated until 16 May 2014 and so outside the specified one year period. In these circumstances the complaint is, in light of the evidence now available, not admissible.

Had I reached a different view on that matter it would have been necessary to consider whether by shouting at Mrs Tabahe on 16 April 2013 Mr McCrea had breached the Code of Conduct and in particular the Respect principle. It is well established that mere disrespect is not sufficient: there is a high threshold. The conduct must be ‘unreasonable and excessive’. In deciding whether Mr McCrea’s conduct could properly be described in that way it would be necessary to take account of all the circumstances as set out in the above Findings and in particular to the fact that Mrs Tabahe, the victim, makes no complaint of a breach of the Code. I welcome the proposed change to the General Procedures Direction in terms of which, I understand, The Commissioner will be able to discontinue consideration of a complaint if satisfied that the alleged victim does not wish it to proceed.

I am not satisfied that any breach of the Code occurred.

62

Complaint 11 - Misconduct towards Nigel Macauley Complaint The complaint is that Mr McCrea bullied and harassed Mr Macauley by ‘treating him with disdain and contempt’, ‘making derogatory comments about him, ignoring his verbal contributions at meetings’ and making ‘undermining, patronizing and belittling comments’ about him.177 Such conduct, if established, could constitute a breach of the Respect principle of the Code.

Complainant This complaint is made only by Mr McCallister. Mr Macauley, the alleged ‘victim’ has made no formal complaint about Mr McCrea’s conduct towards him.

Evidence Because of the risk of prejudice to the ongoing police investigation into his conduct it has not been possible to interview Mr McCallister regarding this complaint. However, it appears clear from his complaint document that he never witnessed any of the alleged misconduct although it appears he was told of one incident by Mr Macauley shortly after it allegedly occurred.178 Given the evidence available from other sources I did not consider it necessary to delay the investigation to enable me to interview Mr McCallister.

That other evidence comes principally from Mr Macauley,179 Peter Hutchinson180 and Mr McCrea.181

Findings of Fact Having considered all the available evidence I found the following facts proved -

177 Document JMcC1 paragraph 4(c) 178 Document JMcC1 paragraph 4(c) 179 Document DB45 page 3B to end 180 Document DB46 181 Document DB31 pages 4C-9B & DB32 pages 1F-2A 63

1. Nigel Macauley was in paid employment at Stormont from 13 January 2014 to 31 May 2014. Prior to 13 January 2014 Mr Macauley had worked for Mr McCallister on a voluntary basis. He had worked previously for the UUP when both Mr McCrea and Mr McCallister were in that Party; 2. During the period 13 January 2014 to 31 May 2014 Mr Macauley’s employment costs were met to the extent of 40% from Mr McCallister’s OCE with the remaining 60% being met from the NI21 FAPP. At no time was Mr Macauley employed by Mr McCrea or paid for out of his OCE; 3. Mr Macauley was recruited by Mr McCallister when Mr McCrea was abroad on holiday. Mr McCrea had no input into the recruitment and did not approve of Mr Macauley’s employment; 4. In relation to his work for NI21 Mr Macauley dealt mainly with communications issues including the Party website and the communications strategy; 5. Whilst in paid employment at Stormont Mr Macauley reported to Mr McCallister in respect of both his work for Mr McCallister and his work for NI21. He met with Mr McCrea only in the latter’s role as Party Leader; 6. On Mr McCrea’s return from holiday in early 2014 a meeting took place between Mr McCrea and Mr Macauley on the extent of the latter’s job description as NI21 Director of Communications. That meeting lasted for more than an hour and was ‘heated’ with some shouting; 7. The three other occasions of alleged misconduct by Mr McCrea all took place in relation to NI21 party business: one of them was at an NI21 Executive Committee meeting; and 8. Mr Macauley’s employment at Stormont was terminated on 31 May 2014 due to lack of funds to pay his wages. It was in no way due to alleged misconduct by Mr McCrea.

Reasoned decision All the witnesses are in agreement that all of the very limited interaction that took place between Mr McCrea and Mr Macauley was in connection with NI21 64

Party business. Mr Macauley was an NI21 employee and Mr McCrea was the Leader of that Party. At no time when dealing with Mr Macauley was Mr McCrea acting in his capacity as a Member of the Assembly. It is plain, in light of the evidence now available, that none of the conduct complained of, even if it took place, was within the scope of the Code.

Had I reached a different decision in relation to that matter it would have been necessary to consider whether the alleged conduct occurred and, if it did, whether it constituted a breach of the Code. I am satisfied that Mr Macauley’s account of Mr McCrea’s conduct at the meeting about his job description referred to in Finding 6 was exaggerated. Mr Hutchinson witnessed that meeting. When asked about it said initially only that ‘there were raised voices’.182 When asked if there had been foul language and shouting he could recall only that there had been shouting.183 His initial description of there having been ‘raised voices’ is consistent with Mr McCrea’s account of the meeting as ‘heated’ which I accept as an accurate description of what took place. I think it inconceivable that Mr Hutchinson would have no recollection of swearing if, as Mr Macauley alleges Mr McCrea shouted and swore at him for an hour and a half.184 I would not have been satisfied that Mr McCrea’s conduct at that meeting constituted a breach of the Code.

Had I found that any of the three other incidents spoken to by Mr Macauley had been within the scope of the Code, it would have been necessary for me to make further enquiries before reaching a decision on whether there had been a breach of the Code. But given the very clear evidence that these incidents all took place in connection with NI21 party business and so where not covered by the Code I considered that the further expenditure of time and money on dealing with these matters could not be justified.

Accordingly, I am not satisfied that any breach of the Code occurred.

182 Document DB46 page 10C 183 Document DB 46 page 11A-C 184 Document DB45 page 5C & DocumentDB46 page 11A-C 65

Complaint 12 – Bullying and harassment of Ashley Murray Complaint The complaint is that Mr McCrea broke the provisions of the Code by bullying and harassing Miss Murray. Bullying and harassment is not, of course, itself a breach of the Code but conduct of that nature could depending on the circumstances be in breach of the Respect principle and of other Code provisions.

Complainants This complaint is made by Miss Murray185, Mr McCallister186 and Mr Patterson187.

Evidence The evidence comes principally from the three complainants, Mr McCrea, Suzanne Chalkley,188 Karen Tabahe,189 Connor Clements190 and 191 together with documents made available to me.

Mr McCallister makes clear in his complaint document and covering letter that he has no direct knowledge of the conduct alleged in this complaint and that it is based on what he was told by Miss Murray when he met her on 14 May 2014 and on information he obtained as a result of the Carecall investigation.192 In these circumstances it was unnecessary for me to interview Mr McCallister in relation to this complaint.

The only alleged misconduct set out in Mr McCallister’s complaint document that is not covered in the other two complaint documents relates to Mr McCrea

185 Document AM2 paragraph 4 et seq 186 Document JMcC1 paragraph 4(a) 187 Document AP2 paragraphs 15-21 188 Document DB39 189 Document DB26 page 10A-B 190 Document DB42 pages 8C-9A 191 Documents DB52 & DB53 192 Document JMcC1 paragraph 4 and letter paragraph 1 66 shouting at Miss Murray causing her to cry. According to what Miss Murray told Mr McCallister this was witnessed by .

Mr Patterson makes clear that he had checked his version of events with Miss Murray before submitting his complaint document.193 In that document he states that –  He ‘gained the impression that Mr McCrea was spreading criticism of Ashleigh with selected staff in order to undermine and discredit her;’194  Mr McCrea put Ashleigh ‘out to grass’ by assigning her to establish and staff the new NI21 office in Lisburn;195  He gained the impression that Mr McCrea had personal issues with Ashleigh;196 and that  Mr McCrea made no effort to allocate a substantive role to Miss Murray.197

When interviewed Mr Patterson told me –  ‘I have no direct evidence that it was him (i.e. Mr McCrea) who told Jacquelyn or Kirsty that Ashleigh is dangerous’ but that he thought it was ‘a reasonable extrapolation that the sources of this bad press about Ashleigh was coming in part, from Basil because he did it to other people and he did it to me’;198  Miss Murray had moved to the Lisburn office when she had changed from being a volunteer to being a paid employee and that it was Mr McCrea who ‘took a decision to find a job for this girl’;199  He was not aware of any inappropriate relationship between Mr McCrea and Miss Murray although Mr McCrea ‘always got a lot of abuse about Basil dolls and all that sort of stuff’;200

193 Document AP2 paragraph 5 194 Document AP2 paragraph 16 195 Document AP2 paragraph 17 196 Document AP2 paragraph 17 197 Document AP2 paragraph 18 198 Document DB12 pages 23C -24C 199 Document DB12 page 25A-C 200 Document DB12 page 28A-B 67

 He had a role in relation to Miss Murray’s management and visited to Lisburn office on occasion to monitor her performance;201  Miss Murray ‘could be late on occasions;’202 and that  He had no direct knowledge of Mr McCrea having instructed Miss Murray how to respond when asked about a complaint she had supposedly made about Mr McCrea203

In her complaint document Miss Murray asserts that:  ‘very often I would be subject of Mr McCrea’s irrational behaviour’;204  After she started work on a paid basis in July 2013 Mr McCrea questioned her repeatedly about poor timekeeping and took steps to check on her attendance;205  Mr McCrea told other staff that she was always late in, wasn’t pulling her weight and was not doing what she was told;206  Mr McCrea falsely denied instructing her to arrange the delivery of furniture to his Lisburn office and then falsely claimed that she had made a complaint about him arising out of that issue and instructed her what she was to say about that complaint;207 an  In October 2013 she searched the Lisburn office over a period of one week for money which she believed had gone missing before being told that Mr McCrea had uplifted the money;208 and that  When she found that the money was missing she ‘contacted Suzanne Chalkley at the time and informed her the money was missing.’209

For the reasons given in relation to Complaint 9, I am satisfied that it is proper to accept Miss Murray’s complaint document as admissible evidence.

201 Document DB12 page 27A-C 202 Document DB12 pages 25C-26A 203 Document DB12 pages18A-19B 204 Document AM2 paragraph 4 205 Document AM2 paragraph 14 206 Document AM2 paragraph 14 207 Document AM2 paragraph 15 208 Document AM2 paragraph 17 209 Document AM2 paragraph 17 68

Miss Neglia made no mention at interview of any improper conduct by Mr McCrea towards Miss Murray.210

Connor Clements told me that he did not realise that there were any problems in relation to Mr McCrea’s conduct towards Miss Murray until she told him about it when he met her in Lisburn ‘probably September time’.211

Karen Tabahe said that -  ‘Ashleigh never brought anything to my attention of any nature or said that Mr McCrea hadn’t treated her properly. She never said anything like that;’212  Miss Murray’s timekeeping ‘wasn’t good’; 213 and that  She, and not Mr McCrea as alleged by Miss Murray, had asked Miss Murray to phone in on the landline when she arrived at the Lisburn office. She had done so because she was concerned for Miss Murray who was working alone at the Lisburn office.214

Suzanne Chalkley told me that -  In April 2013 at the NI21 meeting at La Mon Hotel Mr McCrea had asked her to take Miss Murray ‘under my wing’;215  When Miss Murray moved to the Lisburn office she had been asked my Mr McCrea to ’sort of manage’ Miss Murray;216  On 18 September 2013 she had been present at a meeting attended by and Miss Murray at which the latter had been reminded that it was necessary to make sure that any changes to her contracted hours were properly recorded. That was because a verbal change to Miss Murray’s contracted hours had been made because of her difficulty in attending at her agreed start time due to problems with her buses;217

210 Document DB41 pages 11C-12B 211 Document DB42 pages 8C-9A 212 Document DB26 Page 10A-B 213 Document DB26 page 9A-C 214 Document DB26 pages 8C-9B 215 Document DB39 page 18A-C 216 Document DB39 page 3C-G 217 Document DB39 pages3G-4H 69

 She felt sorry for Miss Murray who lacked guidance. It was agreed at that meeting that she would agree Key performance Indicators with Miss Murray;218  On 28 October 2013, three days before Miss Murray left, she had received an email request from her for a further change to her hours of work. From that email it was clear that although Miss Murray’s hours had already been changed to fit in with her buses she had been using taxis rather than buses to travel to and from work;219  Miss Murray was unhappy. She was concerned that Mr McCrea would not offer her a paid position when the money received by Stormont for her employment ended. Mr McCrea ‘would have been happier to see her away’ and ‘to distance any contact he would have with her.’ She encouraged Miss Murray to seek other employment;220  Mr McCrea ‘could be full of fun, laughter and very pleasant but equally could be very bad tempered’. Following one incident involving Miss Neglia and Miss McClay, when he had been ‘very short’ with them in front of a visitor, she had told Mr McCrea that his man management skills were probably the poorest she had seen;221  On one occasion, prior to Miss Murray starting paid employment, Mr McCrea had made a ‘throw away comment’ that ‘probably wasn’t appropriate’ about Miss Murray’s legs and the length of her skirt;222 and that  Miss Murray had been distressed on discovering that money for which she was responsible had apparently gone missing from the Lisburn office. She was present when Miss Murray made this discovery. She had contacted the Stormont office and been told that Mr McCrea had taken the money. She passed this information to Miss Murray within a few days of the money ‘going missing’223

218 Document DB39 page 6B-C 219 Document DB39 pages 7G-9D & Document BM38 220 Document DB39 9D-11E 221 Document DB39 pages 11C-12G 222 Document DB39 page 17E-H 223 Document DB39 pages 21E-23E 70

Mr McCrea denied any wrongdoing towards Miss Murray. He told me that –  Miss Murray signed her Statement of Particulars under the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order on 8 July 2013. In that document her hours of work were specified as 10am to 5pm Monday to Friday;224  Because of difficulties attending on time, which she said were due to difficulties with her buses, Miss Murray’s hours were, at her request changed to 10.30am to 5pm with 30 minutes instead of an hour for lunch;225  On 28 October 2013, three days before she left, Miss Murray sought a further change to her hours of work again due to her difficulty with her buses. In her request she made clear that despite the earlier change made to her hours to enable her to get to work on time by bus she had in fact continued to use taxis for her journeys to and from work;226  Throughout the period 15 July 2013 to I November 2013, when she was in his paid employment, Miss Murray had difficulties with her time keeping;227  He had tried to accommodate her by adjusting her hours of work;228  He had never asked anyone to check if Miss Murray was at her bus stop in the morning and had no recollection of having asked Mr McNickle to so do;229  He had taken cash that he found cash lying on a table in an unattended office at Lisburn. His vague recollection is that he had waited for Miss Murray to return to the office and that there was ‘no major issue’ regarding cash;230  He did not recall instructing Miss Murray to have furniture delivered to the Lisburn office and believed that he had been abroad on holiday at the relevant time;231

224 Document DB30 pages 4C-5A 225 Document DB30 pages 5A-7A 226 Document DB30 pages 8B-9A & Document BM 38 227 Document DB30 page 7B 228 Document DB30 page 8A-B 229 Document DB30 pages 7B-8B, Document DB32 page 3A-F and Document JMcC14 230 Document DB30 page 9B-C 231 Documents DB30 page 9C-11B 71

 Miss Murray was happy whilst working at the Lisburn office.232 In a Facebook post on 4 September 2013 she referred to doing her exams in business administration and stated ‘Big thanks to Basil McCrea MLA for giving me the opportunity.’233 In a text she sent him on I November 2013, the day she left his employment, Miss Murray stated ‘It really broke my heart to leave! I live for the party and everyone in it!’ and ‘If the financial situation changes let me know and I will be back in a heart beat! Thank you sooooo (sic) much for everything, you took a chance on me when I needed it and I’ll never forget it :) x’.234 and that  Miss Murray’s Facebook post on 4 September 2013, her request on 28 October 2013 to change her hours of work and the text she sent him when she left on 1 November 2013 were inconsistent with this and the other complaints she made against.235

sent me a signed statement setting out her evidence in relation to Mr McCrea.236 I subsequently interviewed her.237 Her evidence can be summarised as follows –  The written statement she had sent me was true;  No one had put pressure on her to send it;  She had worked as a volunteer for Mr McCrea at Stormont from March 2013 until the eve of the NI21 launch in July 2013;  Ashleigh Murray was already working as a volunteer when she started and continued after she left;  She first met Ashleigh and Mr McCrea at an event at Stormont for the Prince’s Trust;  When she started at Stormont Ashleigh had given her the impression that she was a paid employee. It was only some weeks later that she learned from Karen and Fiona that Ashleigh was also a volunteer;

232 Document DB30 pages12A-14A 233 Document BM39 234 Document AM3 235 Document DB30 page 8C et seq 236 Document DB52 237 Document DB53 72

 Ashleigh used to pass on to her work that Mr McCrea had given her to do. She accepted such work because she believed that Ashleigh was a paid staff member;  During the time they were working together Ashleigh never complained to her about Mr McCrea’s conduct. Ashleigh did complain about the workload as she thought it excessive;  Shortly after she started at Stormont she and Ashleigh had been tasked with sending invitations to all those on the NI21 membership list. In a period of about two hours she had completed many more invitations than Ashleigh. Mr McCrea had impressed on both of them the urgency and importance of the task. When doing so he had raised his voice so he could be heard over the noise made by the other people in the room. Ashleigh had rushed out of the room crying. She did not think that there was anything wrong with Mr McCrea’s behaviour. She believed that Ashleigh was upset because she could not accept the need to get on with the task rather than by anything said or done by Mr McCrea. She had spoken to Ashleigh at the time and reminded her that as a volunteer she was free to leave at any time;  She had stopped working as a volunteer on the eve of the NI21 launch because she had come to realise that NI21 did not have the structures and policies in place she had hoped for. Mr McCrea was reluctant to take advice at the time due to the stress involved in setting up a new political party, his approach being that he was the Leader and that therefore the decisions and direction of the party were up to him. She felt that even as a volunteer her voice should have been listened to and she should have been allowed some input;  She never saw or heard any conduct by Mr McCrae which she regarded as improper or untoward;  She had been alone with Mr McCrea on numerous occasions and he had never done anything in anyway improper. He had spoken warmly of his partner;

73

 From shortly after Ashleigh’s allegations had appeared in the media she had been ‘pestered’ by her to make a statement about Mr McCrea’s conduct. She had declined because she did not think that there was anything wrong with his conduct other than being unwilling to take advice;  Ashleigh had tried to explain what her complaint was about but ‘could not get her story straight’;  Mr McCallister had also asked her to make a statement but she had declined for the same reason;  Just because NI21 hadn’t worked out the way she wanted she did not see the need to make allegations against Mr McCrea. He was not her ‘best friend’ but she didn’t like to see false allegations being made out of revenge; and that  She thought Mr McCrea very naive: he wanted to help everyone but didn’t realise what was going on and that some of those he was helping didn’t want to help him;

Documents made available to me shed light on the alleged incidents regarding office furniture. In an email from Mr Patterson to Mr McCrea on 23 July 2013 he asks ‘How’s the holiday going? You must be some shade of brown by now.’238 In an exchange of texts the following day Mr Patterson tells Mr McCrea ’Ashleigh’s arranging the furniture from store’ to which Mr McCrea responds ‘What furniture from store?’239 The signed statement made by Miss Murray some 12 weeks before her complaint document is also informative. In it she states that she told Mr Patterson not of any issues relating to furniture but of ‘my ill feelings and issues about Mr McCrea’240

Findings of fact Having considered all the evidence I find the following facts proved - 1. Miss Murray was employed by Mr McCrea and paid for out of his OCE from 15 July 1013 until 1 November 2013;

238 Document BM37 239 Document AP3 240 Document DB37 page 3 bullet 3 74

2. From spring 2013 until starting paid employment Miss Murray had worked for Mr McCrea in a voluntary capacity; 3. She started as a volunteer after approaching Mr McCrea asking if there were any jobs available; 4.

.; 5. Throughout the period that Miss Murray was in the paid employment of Mr McCrea there was a problem with her timekeeping; 6. Appropriate action, including changes to her contracted hours of work, were made in a vain attempt to assist her to attend on time; 7. No inappropriate action was taken by Mr McCrea in relation to Miss Murray’s poor timekeeping; 8. Miss Murray has given differing accounts of the alleged events in July 2013 regarding furniture for the Lisburn office; 9. Mr McCrea was abroad on holiday at the time of the alleged event; 10. Miss Murray was upset when she searched in vain for cash for which she was responsible that Mr McCrea had, unknown to her, removed from the Lisburn office; and 11. Mr McCrea did not spread false rumours about Miss Murray or institute a whispering campaign against her. 12. On the day she left Mr McCrea’s employment Miss Murray sent him a text praising him as an employer and thanking him for all he had done for her; and 13. Miss Murray made no complaint about this alleged misconduct for more than nine months after she had left Mr McCrea’s employment.

Reasoned decision The first leg of this complaint by Miss Murray’s, namely ‘irrational behaviour’ is supported solely by her unsworn complaint document. It is totally lacking in

75 specification. None of the other witnesses gave evidence in support of it. I am not satisfied that Mr McCrea acted in anyway irrationally towards Miss Murray.

The second leg of this complaint by Miss Murray is that after she started work on a paid basis in July 2013 Mr McCrea questioned her repeatedly about poor timekeeping and took steps to check on her attendance. I am satisfied that throughout the short period during which Miss Murray was in Mr McCrea’s paid employment she had time keeping issues which she claimed was due to problems with the time of buses. It is plain that her hours of work were, at her request, changed in an attempt to facilitate her prompt attendance but that despite that change she continued to use taxis rather than public transport and nonetheless continued to be late for work. Just three days before she left Mr McCrea’s employment Miss Murray requested a further change to her hours of work. Other than the unsworn allegation made in her complaint document there is no evidence to support any repeated questioning of Miss Murray about her time keeping. Indeed, the evidence of Suzanne Chalkley is that Mr McCrea had taken a decision to try to distance himself from direct contact with Miss Murray. I do, however, accept Mr McNickle’s evidence that on one occasion he was asked by Mr McCrea to check if Miss Murray was waiting for her bus to work in the morning but that he had declined to so do because he regarded it as inappropriate. I am surprised that Mr McCrea has no recollection of making that request. I accept Mrs Tabahe’s evidence that it was she, and not Mr McCrea as alleged by Miss Murray, that asked Miss Murray to phone in on the landline when she had arrived at the Lisburn office. For the reasons given in relation to Complaint 9, I do not accept the evidence of Miss Murray in her unsworn and untested complaint document as either credible or reliable. I am not satisfied that this second leg of this complaint by Miss Murray has been made out.

The third leg of this complaint by Miss Murray is that Mr McCrea told other staff that she was always late in, wasn’t pulling her weight and was not doing what she was told. Other than Miss Murray’s unsworn and untested evidence in her complaint document there is nothing to support of this allegation which is denied by Mr McCrea. For the reasons given in relation to Complaint 9, I do 76 not accept Miss Murray’s evidence on this matter. This leg of this complaint has been made out.

The next leg of this complaint by Miss Murray is about the delivery of furniture to the Lisburn office, the subsequent alleged complaint and the alleged interference with the complaints process. Other than Miss Murray’s unsworn and untested complaint document there is little to support this leg of her complaint. For the reasons given in relation to Complaint 9 I attach no substantial weight to her evidence on this matter. I note also that in her signed statement made some 12 weeks before her complaint document Miss Murray stated that she had told Mr Patterson of ‘my ill feelings and issues about Mr McCrea’ rather than about any specific issue relating to office furniture 241 and that in his complaint document Mr Patterson made no mention of this alleged incident.242 Although Mr McCrea’s recollection regarding the office furniture is limited I am satisfied by the email and texts between him and Mr Patterson that at the relevant time he was abroad on holiday and that he gave no instruction to Miss Murray as she alleges. That is inconsistent with Miss Murray’s unsworn and untested version of events as set out in her complaint document. I am satisfied that this leg of this complaint has not been made out.

The fifth leg of this complaint by Miss Murray relates to the removal of cash from the Lisburn office. I found Suzanne Chalkley’s evidence on this matter compelling. I am satisfied that Miss Murray was distressed when, in Mrs Chalkley ’s presence, she discovered that cash for which she was responsible had apparently gone missing. I do not accept that she searched the office for the cash for five days: so was told by Mrs Chalkley within a few days of its apparent disappearance that Mr McCrea had removed it. Nor do I accept Miss Murray’s account that she ‘contacted Suzanne Chalkley and informed her that the money was missing.’ I accept Mrs Chalkley’s evidence that she was present when Miss Murray found the money was missing. I found it surprising that Mr McCrea was unable to give clear evidence of this matter but bear in mind that what was for Miss Murray an event of consequence may have

241 Document DB37 page 3 bullet3 242 Document AP2 77 appeared to him to be of little moment. Whilst I believe that Mr McCrea’s removal of the cash without telling Miss Murray was thoughtless and inappropriate I am not satisfied that it breached any provision of the Code. This leg of her complaint has not been made out.

At interview Mr Patterson told me that he had no direct evidence that Mr McCrea was spreading rumours about Miss Murray as alleged in his complaint document. There is no evidence in support of this allegation which was denied by Mr McCrea. This leg of this complaint by Mr Patterson is without factual basis and has not been made out.

Rather than putting Miss Murray ‘out to grass’ as he alleges in the second leg of this complaint, Mr Patterson told me that it was Mr McCrea who ‘took a decision to find the girl a job.’ There is a wealth of evidence that Miss Murray had been undertaking voluntary work prior to this action by Mr McCrea and that the paid post to which she was appointed was at the Lisburn office. Like the first leg of his complaint this second leg is without factual basis and has not been made out.

Mr Patterson offered no evidence in relation to the third leg of his complaint. There being no factual basis for it, it also is not made out.

The fourth leg of Mr Patterson’s complaint, namely, that Mr McCrea failed to allocate a substantive role to Miss Murray is equally lacking in any evidential basis or merit. There is clear evidence that Mr McCrea delegated management responsibility for Miss Murray to Mr Patterson from the time she started work on 17 July 2013 until he stood down as de facto NI21 Party Secretary on 14 August 2013. Thereafter the role was taken on by Mrs Chalkley. It has not been suggested by any witness that it was in anyway improper for Mr McCrea to delegate his day to day management function in relation to a very junior member of staff. This fourth leg of the complaint has not been made out.

78

I have considered the allegation made in Mr McCallister’s complaint document that Mr McCrea shouted at Miss Murray causing her to cry. The only evidence of this comes from . I accept her evidence that rather than shouting at Miss Murray Mr McCrea shouted to make himself heard over the noise in the room when asking Miss Murray whether she had completed a task. It is plain that this incident took place before Miss Murray entered Mr McCrea’s employ, that she attached so little significance to it that it is not mentioned in her complaint document and that despite it she took up paid employment with Mr McCrea only a short time later.

I have also considered whether, when taken in the round, Mr McCrea’s conduct towards Miss Murray whilst she was working at Lisburn breached the Code. I am satisfied that it did not. If Mr McCrea’s conduct had been anything like as bad as alleged I find it inconceivable that she would have –  Made the Facebook post on 4 September 3013;  Applied for a change to her hours of work on 28 October 2013; and  Sent the text praising him to Mr McCrea on 1 November 2013.

On the evidence I am not satisfied that any breach of the Code occurred.

Conspiracy Mr McCrea has told me of his belief that the complaints against him were part of a conspiracy to discredit him and force his resignation as the Leader of NI21. As Standards Commissioner it is my role to establish whether a breach of the Code of Conduct occurred rather than why a complaint of a breach of that Code was made. I have not, therefore, looked into Mr McCrea’s assertion of a conspiracy against him.

79

Recommendations The new Code of Conduct agreed by the Assembly on 23 June 2015 and the proposed new General Procedures Direction will, when commenced, address all the matters in relation to which I would have made recommendations. I, therefore, make no recommendations.

Summary Because of the risk of prejudice to the police investigation into Mr McCallister’s conduct, I have been unable to interview him and so to complete my investigation into that part of the complaint of bullying and harassment of Miss Neglia that relates to the alleged breach A further report in respect of that matter will be submitted as soon as practicable.

Following a full and thorough investigation of all the other allegations against Mr McCrea, I am not satisfied that any breach of the Code of Conduct occurred.

Douglas Bain CBE TD Advocate Northern Ireland Assembly Commissioner for Standards 16 October 2015

80

Annex A

MOST RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS

Scope

It is important to note that this Code aims to cover the conduct of all Members with respect to anything Members say or do in their capacity as an elected Member of the Assembly. However, it does not, for example, cover:

 The conduct or activities of Members in their private and family life;

 Allegations in respect of the conduct of Ministers, where such an allegation is essentially an allegation that falls within the scope of the Ministerial Code of Conduct and where the allegation does not clearly overlap with the Minister’s conduct and duties as a Member; or

 Conduct or comments made by Members in the Chamber when the Assembly is sitting (other than that referred to in Standing Order 70).

Furthermore, Members are entitled to legally express any political opinion that they may hold. In doing so, however, Members should have regard to the Principles of Conduct and should not express opinions in a manner that is manifestly in conflict with the Principles of Conduct.

It is also important to understand that the obligations of Members detailed in this Code are complementary to those that apply to all Members by virtue of the procedural and other rules of the Assembly including the rulings of the Speaker.

Principles of Conduct

Members shall observe the following principles of conduct, which include principles based upon the general principles of conduct identified by the Committee on Standards in Public Life as applying to holders of public office, and further principles agreed by the Assembly:

Public Duty

81

Members have a duty to uphold the law and to act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them.

Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the community as a whole.

Members have a special duty to their constituents and are responsible to the electorate who are the final arbiter of their conduct as public representatives.

Selflessness

Members should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not act in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, their friends or associates.

Integrity

Members should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations which might reasonably be thought by others to influence them in the performance of their duties as a Member of the Assembly.

Accountability

Members are accountable for their decisions and actions to the people of Northern Ireland and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

Openness

Members should be as open as possible about the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands it.

Honesty

Members should act honestly. They have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties. Members should take steps to resolve any conflicts between their private interests and public duties at once and in a way that protects the public interest.

82

Leadership

Members should promote and support these principles by leadership and example in order to establish and maintain the trust and confidence of the people of Northern Ireland, and to ensure the integrity of the Assembly and its Members in conducting business.

Equality

Members should promote equality of opportunity and not discriminate against any person by treating people with respect regardless of race, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, political opinion, marital status and whether or not a person has dependents.

Promoting Good Relations

Members will act in a way that is conducive to promoting good relations by providing a positive example for the wider community to follow by acting justly and promoting a culture of respect for the law.

Respect

It is acknowledged that the exchange of ideas, and opinions on policies may be robust but this should be kept in context and not extend to individuals being subjected to unreasonable and excessive personal attack. Members should keep in mind that rude and offensive behaviour may lower the public’s regard for, and confidence in, Members and the Assembly itself. Members should therefore show respect and consideration for others at all times.

Rules of the Code of Conduct Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the Assembly and never undertake any action which would bring the Assembly into disrepute.

83

Annex B DOCUMENTS USED IN REACHING DECISIONS243

Document No Description

JMcC1 Complaint Document JMcC2 Carecall Investigation Timeline JMcC3 Carecall Note of Meeting – Jacquelyn Neglia JMcC4 Carecall Note of Meeting – Fiona McAteer JMcC5 Carecall Note of Meeting – Conor Clements JMcC6 Carecall Note of Meeting – Jamie Mackrell JMcC7 Carecall Note of Meeting – Nigel Macauley JMcC8 Carecall Note of Meeting – Peter Hutchinson JMcC9 Carecall Note of Meeting – Annette Holden JMcC10 Letter Holden/Bain, 30 July 2014 JMcC11 Carecall Note of Meeting – Cathy Wilson JMcC12 Email – McCallister 6 May 2014 JMcC13 Three copy photographs JMcC14 Email – McNickle/McCallister, 24 May 2014

AM1 Letter Holmes & Moffitt/Bain 7 August 2014 AM2 Statement of Complaint AM3 Screenshot of Texts, Murray/McCrea AM4 Letter Holmes & Moffitt/Bain, 1 September 2014 AM5 Copy cheque £183.00 AM6 Copy Bank Statement – Ashley Murray AM7 Extracts Sunday Life AM8 AM9 Photograph Bank Statement – Ashley Murray

243 Subject to a small number of occasions on which an incorrect number was allocated, documents are numbered as follows: JMcC – produced by John McCallister MLA; AP – produced by Alan Patterson; AM – produced by, or on behalf of, Ashleigh Murray; BM – produced by Basil McCrae MLA; DB – produced by, or otherwise furnished to Douglas Bain, Commissioner for Standards. 84

AM10 Photograph of screenshot of McCrea’s computer AM11 Photograph of screenshot of text McCrea/ AM12 Attendance record – Murray AM13 Note of Performance Review meeting – Murray

AP1 Email Patterson/Bain, 17 July 2014 AP2 Complaint Document AP3 Texts – McCrea/Patterson, 24 July 2013 AP4 Letter Speaker/McCrea, 11 June 2013 AP5 Email – Murray/Patterson, 17 June 2013 AP6 Email – Patterson/Murray, 17 June 2013 AP7 Email – Patterson/McCrea, 18 June 2013 AP8 Report – Review of D’Hondt etc AP9 Email – /Patterson, 24 July 2013 and attachments. AP10 Email – /Patterson, 24 July 2013 AP11 AP12 Email – Patterson/ , 25 July 2013 AP13 Email – Patterson/McCrea, 15 August 2013 AP14 Email – /Patterson, 5 August 2013 AP15 Email – Patterson/McCrea, 10 September 2013

DB1 Letter – Bain/Patterson, 18 July 2014 DB2 Letter – Bain/Holmes & Moffitt, 11 August 2014 DB3 Staff Employment Dates DB4 Hansard – Committee for Employment and Learning,

DB4A Letter Tabahe/Bain, 10 September 2014 DB5 Internet Information – Ashley Murray (Princes Trust) DB6 Internet Information – Sinn Fein Summer School 2013 DB7 OCE Report 2012/13 – Basil McCrea

85

DB8 OCE Report 2013/14 – Basil McCrea DB9 Letter McCrea/Bain, 21 October 2014 DB10 Internet Information – Ashley Murray ( ) DB11 Internet Information – Ashley Murray ( ) DB12 Transcript – Alan Patterson 11 November 2014 DB13 Transcript – Jamie Mackrell 2 December 2014 DB14 Transcript – Ashley Murray 13 November 2014 DB15 Letter Bain/Holmes & Moffitt, 15 January 2015 DB16 Letter Holmes & Moffitt/Bain, 25 March 2015 DB17 Medical Report – Ashley Murray, 29 January 2015 DB18 Letter Bain/Holmes & Moffitt, 5 March 2015 DB19 Letter Bain/Holmes & Moffitt, 2 April 2015 DB20 CPS Note on Medical Certificates DB21 Letter King & Gowdy/Bain, 22 July 2015 DB22 Letter King & Gowdy/Bain, 9 June 2015 DB23 Letter /Murray, 14 June 2012 DB24 Letter Murray/ , 31 May 2012 DB25 Letter Murray/ , 4 June 2012 DB26 Transcript – Karen Tabahe, 27 January 2015 with note attached DB27 Transcript – Karen Tabahe, 3 March 2015 DB28 Transcript – Basil McCrea, 8 December 2014 DB29 Transcript – Basil McCrea, 9 June 2015 DB30 Transcript – Basil McCrea, 11 June 2015 DB31 Transcript – Basil McCrea, 23 June 2015 DB32 Transcript – Basil McCrea, 16 September 2015 DB33 Transcript – Annette Holden, 18 November 2014 DB34 Transcript – Annette Holden, 27 January 2015 DB35 Texts – Murray/McCrea, undated DB36 Tweets – Neil McNickle DB37 Statement – Ashley Murray, 15 May 2014 DB38 Email – McNickle/McCallister, 24 May 2014

86

DB39 Transcript – Suzanne Chalkley DB40 DVD ‘The view’, 22 May 2014 DB41 Transcript – Jacquelyn Neglia, 26 January 2015 DB42 Transcript – Conor Clements, 20 January 2015 DB43 Transcript – Conor Clements, 3 August 2015 DB44 Transcript – Fiona McAteer, 18 November 2014 DB44A Transcript – Fiona McAteer – proposed revisions DB44B Email – Bain/McAteer – proposed revisions DB45 Transcript – Nigel Macauley, 12 November 2014 DB46 Transcript – Peter Hutchinson, 25 November 2014 DB47 Email – /Bain, 27 August 2015 DB48 Carecall Note of Meeting – Ashley Murray DB49 Transcript – Basil McCrea, 29 September 2015 DB50 Transcript – Cathy Wilson, 18 November 2014 DB51 Transcript – Neil McNickle, 29 September 2015 DB52 Statement – 5 November 2014 DB53 Note of interview – 8 October 2015 DB54 Carecall Note of Meeting – Karen Tabahe DB55 Email Mackrell/ 13 January 2015 DB56 Statement - 6 January 2014 DB57 Texts – 3 & 5 May 2013 DB58 Texts – Murray/Neglia & Neglia/ 17 May 2013 DB59 Texts - Neglia/Murray 27 May 2013 DB60 Proposed NI21 leaflet DB61 Emails McCrea/McCallister 13 & 14 May 2013 DB62 Facebook post – Murray 2 September 2013 DB63 Employment history – Ashleigh Murray

BM1 Texts – Murray/McCrea, 30 June 2013 BM2 Email – Murray/McCrea, 18 September 2013 BM3 Email – Macauley/McCrea, 27 September 2013 BM4 Email – Murray/Chalkley, 24 September 2014

87

BM5 Email – /McCrea, 1 October 2013 BM6 Email – Chalkley/Murray, 2 October 2013 BM7 Letter – Danske Bank/McCrea, 2 December 2014 BM8 Email – Murray/Chalkley, 28 October 2013 BM9 Text – Murray/McCrea, 1 November 2013 BM10 Email – Holden/Murray, 24 October 2013 BM11 Sample A5 Assembly first-class prepaid envelope BM12 Email – , 10 November 2014 BM13 Icon Invoice, 28 October 2013 BM14 NI21 Party Conference 2013 Invitation BM15 NI21 Party Conference 2013 Guest Pass BM16 Email – Holden/McClay, 30 June 2014 BM17 Email – McClay/ , 3 November 2014 BM18 Lyreco Invoice, 31 October 2013 BM19 Email – McClay/ , 15 September 2014 BM20 Email – Mackrell/McCrea, 30 April 2013 BM21 Email – Mackrell/McCrea, 21 August 2013 BM22 Texts – Mackrell/McCrea, 14 May 2013 BM23 Note by McCrea – Holden and NI21 Finance Issues BM24 La Mon Memo and Invoice, 16 December 2014 BM25 Email – McClay/Holden, 28 November 2013 BM26 Email – McClay/Holden, 22 January 2014 BM27 Email – Holden/McClay, 21 October 2013 BM28 Email – Holden/McClay, 13 November 2013 BM29 Letter – Peter Bowles & Co/Newsletter, 22 May 2013 BM30 Statement to Sunday Life BM31 Email – Neglia/McCrea, 25 December 2013 BM32 Texts – Murray/Neglia, 18 November 2013 BM33 Job Application - Neglia BM34 Tweets by Alan Patterson BM34A Email – Patterson/Kirsty 31 July 2013 BM35 Newsletter Article, 22 May 2014 BM36 Texts – Murray/McCrea, 1 November 2014

88

BM37 Text – Patterson/McCrea, 23 July 2013 BM38 Email – Murray/Chalkley, 28 October 2013

TR1 Memorandum – 14 October 2014 TR2 Office Consumables Requisition form – McCrea, 1 August 2013 TR3 Office Consumables Requisition form – McCrea, 24 October 2013 TR4 Office Consumables Requisition form – McCrea, 3 December 2013 TR5 Payment History – Ashleigh Murray TR6 Form A1 – Ashleigh Murray TR7 Form A – Ashleigh Murray TR8 Job Description – Ashleigh Murray TR9 Statement of Particulars – Ashleigh Murray TR10 Payment History – Jamie Mackrell TR11 Form A1 – Jamie Mackrell TR12 Form A – Jamie Mackrell TR13 Job Description – Jamie Mackrell TR14 Statement of Particulars – Jamie Mackrell

89