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 11 her employment history prior to starting work as a volunteer for Mr McCrea. 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.