by Nick Lockett. Disclosure: The Author was between 1990 and 1994 a mini-pupil & barrister working under Ms Jacqueline Perry KC. The Author’s view is that Jacqueline Perry KC is exceedingly competent, scrupulously fair and beyond reproach.
The independent investigation by Jacqueline Perry KC has found “credible evidence of unlawful harassment of two women” by MP Rupert Lowe and his team, the investigation being launched by the Reform Party after complaints from two women working in Mr Lowe’s offices about bullying by the MP and male staff members. As a result, Rupert Lowe was suspended by Reform and claimed it is part of an attempt to smear his reputation because he questioned party leader Nigel Farage.
The independent KC investigation by top barrister Jacqueline Perry KC followed complaints that emanated initially directly from a women to Mr. Lowe on 18th December 2024 about bullying and unacceptable conduct from a particular individual in the constituency office.
The KC found that:
1. There is credible evidence of victimisation; constant criticisms; discriminatory behaviour amounting to harassment on the part of both Mr. Lowe and his constituency team.
2. The complaints pre-date any action against Mr Lowe, and any negative comments by Rupert Lowe about Nigel Farage by some period of time.
3. Mr. Lowe failed or was unwilling to address the very real concerns of his own Parliamentary Secretary and also failed to address the alleged toxic conduct or understand his duty and responsibility to ensure systems were in place to stop any unfair and discriminatory treatment of staff.
4. The ‘failures’ on the part of the womendid not warrant disciplinary action by Mr Lowe, and much less dismissal.
5. Mr. Lowe should have taken seriously the distress and concerns of a seasoned Parliamentary employee and of both women.
6. There was a failure to take action or indeed investigate complaints against two men in the constituency office (Wedon and Porter) and against Mr. Harrison who formed part of this team.
7. There is real risk that the acts complained of, if made out, would give rise to breaches of the Equality Act 2010.
THE BACKGROUND
Following the emails from the two women sent the 27th February 2025 which had clearly raised complaints of bullying by Mr. Lowe and by those in his constituency office that on the 28th February 2025, the Party wrote directly to Mr. Lowe requesting his cooperation in an independent investigation.
By this letter, he was informed that the Party had received evidence of bullying, discriminatory behaviour, misuse of disciplinary procedures and concerns about the behaviour towards female staff. It is right to point out that the Party had been sent both the formal complaint from to ICGS and certain WhatsApp messages that had been written by Mr. Lowe’s constituency manager about .
The complaints had been raised by both women prior to any disciplinary procedures set in motion by Mr. Lowe against each of them.
The KC found out that “Any suggestion from Mr. Lowe, as he has made in the media, that these women complained following the instigation of disciplinary proceedings against either of them is incorrect and in the case of [one of them], demonstrably so. Jacqueline Perry KC also found that both women complained of considerable stress and suffering following details of alleged sustained bullying and discriminatory conduct and they each raised.
The KC confirmed that The Reform Party provided her with no specific instructions or remit and
requested that she devise her own remit. When Mr. Lowe requested to know what her remit for the enquiry was and from whom it had emanated, the KC made it clear in a lengthy email that she was given no remit nor instructions save to look into these allegations of bullying and harassment by him and those who answered to him from his constituency office.
Rupert Lowe made a number of inaccurate posts online about the KC’s findings and there were
“a number of exchanges and conversations with Mr. Lowe – one of which led to some misunderstanding about what was said by me {the KC] and which had to be corrected by me in a public statement”.
Each complainant signed their statement endorsed with a Statement of Truth, a device that has been
employed for some time in court proceedings instead of a sworn affidavit but carrying the same serious impact as if the same was indeed supported by an oath (making them liable to perjury).
On 14th March, Jacqueline Perry KC sent the completed and signed statements, respective appendices to the solicitors appointed by Mr. Lowe, namely Mr. Jason Newall of Irwin Mitchell together with a list of questions arising out of the material in the statements to assist, I hoped, Mr. Lowe to provide me with an equally considered and full response, setting out his position in answer to the allegations.
The KC was then advised that Mr Lowe was declining to formally respond to the complaints in the statements nor would he answer the questions, wishing to delay any engagement with the KC’s investigation due to the complication of an alleged assault incident against Rupert Lowe which was being investigated by the Police. This was despite the KC determining that there was ” police investigations could see “no nexus [i.e. no link] between allegations of bullying/harassment by employees and any alleged criminal and potentially formal proceeding that might involve the authorities”. The KC found that she could see no reason why Rupert Lowe could not formally respond.
Mr. Lowe made a statement on social media stating:
“I will not be engaging with the Reform ‘investigation’ into blatantly vexatious complaints made by former employees who both admitted serious offences and were going through the disciplinary process
regarding this misconduct before any of their ‘issues’ were raised. There is no credible evidence of any ‘bullying’ by anybody, because there was none. This has been weaponised in a desperate attempt to smear my name”
This message is entirely consistent with Mr. Lowe’s stance from the very start of this process and in
fairness to him, the KC gave such weight to his consistent position as is due.
The KC also pointed out that Rupert Lowe had wrongly stated that the disciplinary proceedings preceded the complaints – she found that the complaints about Rupert Lower were made some time before the disciplinary proceedings and some time before his criticism of Nigel Farage which occurred very shortly before the Reform Party Whip was withdrawn.
The KC also wrote that she would have been assisted by statements from Mr. Wedon and, indeed, from an Alistair Harrison who features in both complaints and sits in the unusual position of being an ‘independent contractor’ of Mr. Lowe’s who was understood to be responsible for Mr. Lowe’s social media but played, as it turned out, a larger part in this matter.
The complainants were both highly qualified, young women – each holding Bachelors’ and Masters’ degrees from Russell Group universities.
– One of the women entered the political arena permanently and had a remarkably successful career for no less than 14 years, in Parliament, having worked for two Ministers’ of State in the Conservative Party and another Member of Parliament from which job she went to work for Mr. Lowe in his Parliamentary Office. She had become a Senior Parliamentary Secretary and Office Manager before she began working for Mr. Lowe.
– The other woman was employed as a case worker in the Constituency Office after holding responsible and indeed vital positions for a software company and then for a Fire and Rescue Service and was indeed ‘headhunted’ for the constituency job at Mr. Lowe’s Great Yarmouth Constituency.
One woman said that she was “subject to constant criticism meted out unpleasantly and harshly by the
said Harrison who she began to feel she could not please in any way whatsoever. ndeed, she cites that Jonathan Wedon, with whom she was on friendly terms was also very irritated and irked by Harrison’s
arrogation of complete control over constituency matters. This barrage of criticism, which was so alien to her earlier experiences over many years in Parliament doing similar work began to have a deleterious impact upon her”. She also went on to say “In mid-January, she approached Mr Lowe again for a frank and concerned discussion about the impact upon her that Harrison was having. To her surprise, distress and disappointment, she was, she claimed, met with hostility and disdain. In fact, Mr. Lowe, she says, simply made clear that Harrison was ‘his man’ and if she didn’t like it, she could ‘make other arrangements’ especially as she had been put into ‘the black corner’ by Harrison and he ‘was not afraid to get rid of anyone’. A further attempt to engage with Harrison and his assistant, Jason Porter, to clear the air was met with rudeness and aggression and the said Porter told her that ‘no-one had time for this’.
The KC found that her case was supported by the fact that she attended her GP on more than one occasion but declined to be ‘signed off’ for health reasons until she was eventually so signed off by her doctor for stress related symptoms which, she asserts, have severely impacted upon her confidence and sense of self.
She found herself under constant pressure and criticism feeling that she could do nothing right, with criticism coming rom both Alistair Harrison and Jonathan Wedon and found that similar conduct was tolerated and accepted in others in the office.
The KC found that Mr. Lowe who had the ultimate responsibility for and did sign off on all of the contracts.
In relation to the other complainant, she only worked at the constituency office and her essential complaint is that she was treated quite differently and discriminatorily from others (like Liam Porter or indeed Wedon himself) and that matters came to a head when she had been criticised for not accessing earlier case information for guidance and ensuring that a ‘new’ complaint did not already have a file. When, however, she did exactly that and found that an earlier case had involved her own family, when she was criticized for data breach. By way of contrast, Mr. Wedon had openly discussed a case
accessed by him which had involved her own neighbours.
WHAT IS THE LAW?
The law is that an employer is liable for acts of discrimination, harassment and victimisation carried out by its employees in the course of employment: ‘anything done by a person (A) in the course of A’s employment must be treated as also done by the employer’ – s. 109(1) of the Equality Act 2010. It matters not whether that thing is done with the employer’s knowledge or approval. But an employer has a defence, under s. 109(4), where it can show that it took all reasonable steps to prevent the employee from carrying out the act of discrimination. A recent and important decision of the Employment Appeals’ Tribunal (cited below @para 61) looked at the scope of this defence.
When considering an employer’s defence that it took ‘all reasonable steps’ to prevent an employee discriminating against another employee, it is legitimate to consider how effective the steps that have been taken were likely to be when they were taken and how effective they have proved to be in practice.
Although the complainants were contracted to and paid for by Parliament. It is likely, however, that Rupert Lowe would be regarded as the employer since both of these women’s jobs depended entirely
upon his tenure in Parliament.
The KC found that Rupert Lowe is likely to be found responsible for acts carried out under his authority and in respect of staff behaviour for other staff members and that the threshold for finding unfair or discriminatory treatment of an employee under Section 26 of the Act is very low, and that if the bullying
conduct can be related to the sex or any disability suffered by an employee – this would likely amount to harassment – and that Mr. Lowe has to be responsible for setting the ‘tone’ in his office and constituency office and thus he is responsible for the acts of both Wedon and Harrison.