conducting a trawling exercise or fishing expedition in relation to a particular person or group of
people within the Labour Party. I am not going so far to say that a politically motivated complaint
should always be disregarded, just that motivation may have relevance, as will context. I also recognise
that the Party's elected structures (Leader, the NEC etc.) should be able to raise concerns of their own
volition about a member in danger of bringing the Party into disrepute. However, if an investigation
arises via this route, that should be also clearly recorded. Further, subjects of complaint should
normally be informed both of its substance and author at the earliest opportunity unless there is a
clear and pressing reason for protecting the identity of a complainant.
Submissions to my Inquiry reveal a level of concern and confusion (in some quarters) about the
"Macpherson" definition of a racist incident. This is of course a reference to the famous Report of
1999 into the Metropolitan Police after its appalling mishandling of Stephen Lawrence's murder. The
principle that an incident should be recorded as "racist" when perceived that way by a victim may
indeed have some useful application outside the policing context, and even here in the world of
Labour Party discipline. However the purpose of the approach is to ensure that investigators handle a
complaint with particular sensitivity towards the victim. It is to suggest the seriousness with which a
complaint must be handled, but in no way to determine its outcome. If I complain to the police that I
have been the victim of a racist attack on the street, I should expect my complaint to be so recorded.
However investigation and due process must of course then follow and it is perfectly possible that an
investigator, prosecutor or magistrate will subsequently find either that no attack took place at all, or
that its motivation was something other than racism. In the present context, my complaint that I have
been subject to racist or other personal abuse by a fellow Party Member should be so recorded, taken
seriously and handled sensitively. However it will be for the investigation and any subsequent process
to determine whether my complaint was ultimately well-founded.
Publicity
It is completely unfair, unacceptable and a breach of Data Protection law that anyone should have
found out about being the subject to an investigation or their suspension by way of the media and
indeed that leaks, briefing or other publicity should so often have accompanied a suspension pending
investigation. Indeed such an interim suspension being public ought to be the greatest exception
rather than the rule, in for example, a case where the person concerned continues (despite warning)
with public repetition of their allegedly offending remarks and publicity of their suspension is the only
way to protect the reputation of the Party.
In the more ordinary course of events, a subject of complaint ought, as I have already mentioned, to
be put on notice that they are the subject of complaint and investigation (with or without interim
suspension) and any press inquiries followed up with a standard line that all complaints are followed
up expeditiously.
Where a person has been subject to interim suspension, the smallest number of people possible
should be informed in order to give practical effect to the suspension (i.e. those charged with
convening branch or CLP meetings that the person in question may be barred from attending). For the
most part, it should be possible to rely on the subject of any investigation and suspension to "lie low"
and self-police their temporary suspension from the Party.
This would mark a sharp contrast with the recent state of affairs when it is publicity, almost as much as
alleged misconduct on the part of any particular member, which has caused difficulties for the Party in
17