Just three weeks ago, Dominic Raab was sitting in Number 10 being offered his old jobs back, after a short hiatus from government thanks to Liz Truss.
But now he has been installed back as the cabinet secretary in charge of the Ministry of Justice, and as deputy prime minister, he is facing questions over his conduct during his previous tenures in the roles, and at other departments too.
Sources close to Mr Raab have hit back at the claims, with a number of his Tory colleagues standing by him as “an excellent and considerate boss”.
However, as accusations continue to emerge, let’s look back at what has been reported so far:
The first claims against Mr Raab emerged on Friday in The Guardian about his stint at the MoJ between September 2021 and September 2022 under Boris Johnson.
More on Dominic Raab
Related Topics:
The newspaper said around 15 senior civil servants in his private office had been offered “respite or a route out” after his return was announced, due to concerns some were still traumatised from working for him.
Multiple MoJ sources also said he had previously created a “culture of fear” in the department, alleging he was “demeaning rather than demanding” with civil servants, and that he was “very rude and aggressive”, adding: “[He] wasn’t just unprofessional, he was a bully”.
Advertisement
But a spokesperson for the department said there was “zero tolerance for bullying across the civil service”, adding: “The deputy prime minister leads a professional department, driving forward major reforms, where civil servants are valued and the level of ambition is high.”
Tomatoes and riot acts
Within hours of the story breaking, two more emerged from Mr Raab’s earlier time at the MoJ.
One in the Sun claimed he had thrown tomatoes from his salad at staff.
And another in the Mirror said he had been given the nickname “The Incinerator” because of how quickly he “burns through” employees.
But the deputy PM’s spokesman called the salad attack claim “complete nonsense” and denied a high turnover of staff in his departments.
All three of the articles also claimed the permanent secretary, Antonia Romeo, warned Mr Raab to treat staff with respect on his return, with one source, who was not in the room at the time, saying she had “read him the riot act”.
On Saturday, a single source told ITV News that the Cabinet Office had been informed about concerns over Mr Raab’s behaviour when he was Brexit secretary in 2018.
The Observer picked up the story, saying a “formal expression of concern” had been sent to a senior official in the Department for Exiting the European Union, alleging “unprofessional, even bullying, conduct of the minister towards his private office”.
But the Cabinet Office told the newspaper it had “no record of any formal complaints” being passed onto them.
Surveys and support
Come Sunday, the focus fell onto Mr Raab’s time as foreign secretary, between July 2020 and September 2021.
A survey was leaked to ITV News showing eight people working in his private office at the time claimed to have been bullied or harassed at work, while 15 staff reported witnessing another person being bullied or treated unfairly.
The results were anonymous, though, so neither the perpetrator nor victim could be identified.
In response, a spokesman for Mr Raab said he had “high standards, works hard, and expects a lot from his team as well as himself”, but that he “worked well with officials” and “always acts with the utmost professionalism”.
As Rishi Sunak travelled to the G20 summit in Bali on Sunday night, he faced questions about the reappointment of Mr Raab, but insisted he did not “recognise that characterisation” of his colleague and was “unaware” of any formal complaints being made against him.
A Number 10 spokeswoman also said: “As the prime minister has said before, people in public life should treat others with consideration and respect. Those are principles that this government will stand by.
“There are established procedures by which civil servants can raise complaints. These processes allow allegations to be looked at and considered with due process and a fair hearing.”
When Monday rolled around, an interview with a former top official at the Foreign Office during Mr Raab’s tenure set tongues wagging again.
Former permanent secretary Lord Simon McDonald was asked on LBC whether the previous days’ bullying allegations were plausible, and he replied: “Yes.”
He added: “Dominic Raab is one of the most driven people I ever worked for, he was a tough boss.
“Maybe they are euphemisms, but I worked closely with him and I didn’t see everything that happened.”
Within hours, there was another story from The Guardian, claiming Mr Raab had been warned about his behaviour towards officials at the Foreign Office on multiple occasions by none other than Lord McDonald.
The paper also alleged that Lord McDonald had several informal conversations with the head of the propriety and ethics team at the Cabinet Office about him between 2019 and 2020 about the issue.
A spokesman for Mr Raab told The Guardian: “Dominic had frequent discussions with his permanent secretary at the Foreign Office about how best to run the department and ensure that it delivered to the highest standard in challenging circumstances such as during COVID.”
Behaviour and high standards
Tuesday and Lord McDonald was back on the airwaves, talking to Times Radio about Mr Raab. He went further than in his LBC interview, saying many colleagues were “scared” to go into the then foreign secretary’s office when he was in charge.
The peer said Mr Raab “was not aware of the impact of his behaviour on the people working for him and couldn’t be made to see that impact”, adding: “Colleagues did not complain to me formally, it was kind of their professional pride to cope, but many were scared to go into his office.”
And he said the minister’s defence was that “he treated everybody in the building in the same way – he was as abrasive and controlling with junior ministers and senior officials as he was with his private secretaries.”
But again, Mr Raab’s spokesman insisted he had “acted with professionalism and integrity in all of his government roles”, adding: “He has an excellent record of driving positive change in multiple government departments by working well with officials.
“He holds everyone, and most of all himself, to the high standards that the British people would expect of their government.”
There was another accusation coming his way – this time from Labour’s Lisa Nandy, who shadowed Mr Raab when he was at the Foreign Office.
She told Sky News she had heard “a number of rumours this was a pattern of behaviour”, adding: “It’s been something of an open secret in Westminster for the last few years there is a problem in the justice department, there was a problem in the Foreign Office – it was apparently particularly directed towards women.
“I think it’s really damning that Rishi Sunak has appointed Dominic Raab to this post knowing that this is potentially an issue.”
But Mr Raab’s spokesman “categorically” denied the allegation, while his team said suggestions he has a woman problem was “nonsense”.
A source close to Mr Raab said: “This is baseless mudslinging with no grounding in reality, and undermines serious cases of bullying and inappropriate behaviour.”
On Wednesday, all eyes will be on Mr Raab once more as he takes to the dispatch box to cover Prime Minister’s Questions for Mr Sunak while he is away at the G20 summit.
The US has announced it has increased its reward for information leading to the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
In a statement on Friday, the US treasury said up to $25m is being offered for information leading to the arrest of Mr Maduro and his named interior minister Diosdado Cabello.
Up to $15m is also being offered for information on the incoming defence minister Vladimir Padrino. Further sanctions have also been introduced against the South American country’s state-owned oil company and airline.
The reward was announced as Mr Maduro was sworn in for a third successive term as the Venezuelan president, following a disputed election win last year.
Elvis Amoroso, head of the National Electoral Council, said at the time Mr Maduro had secured 51% of the vote, beating his opponent Edmundo Gonzalez, who won 44%.
But while Venezuela’s electoral authority and top court declared him the winner, tallies confirming Mr Maduro’s win were never released. The country’s opposition also insists that ballot box level tallies show Mr Gonzalez won in a landslide.
Nationwide protests broke out over the dispute, with a brawl erupting in the capital Caracas when dozens of police in riot gear blocked the demonstrations and officers used tear gas to disperse them.
More on Nicolas Maduro
Related Topics:
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:40
From July 2024: Protests after Venezuela election results
While being sworn in at the national assembly, Mr Maduro said: “May this new presidential term be a period of peace, of prosperity, of equality and the new democracy.”
He also accused the opposition of attempting to turn the inauguration into a “world war,” adding: “I have not been made president by the government of the United States, nor by the pro-imperialist governments of Latin America.”
Lammy: Election ‘neither free nor fair’
The UK and EU have also introduced new sanctions against Venezuelan officials – including the president of Venezuela’s supreme court Caryslia Beatriz Rodriguez Rodriguez and the director of its criminal investigations department Asdrubal Jose Brito Hernandez.
Foreign Secretary David Lammy said Mr Maduro’s “claim to power is fraudulent” and that last year’s election “was neither free nor fair”.
“The UK will not stand by as Maduro continues to oppress, undermine democracy, and commit appalling human rights violations,” he added.
Mr Maduro and his government have always rejected international sanctions as illegitimate measures that amount to an “economic war” designed to cripple Venezuela.
Those targeted by the UK’s sanctions will face travel bans and asset freezes, preventing them from entering the country and holding funds or economic resources.
Donald Trump has been handed a no-penalty sentence following his conviction in the Stormy Daniels hush money case.
The incoming US president has received an unconditional discharge – meaning he will not face jail time, probation or a fine.
Manhattan Judge Juan M Merchan could have jailed him for up to four years.
The sentencing in Manhattan comes just 10 days before the 78-year-old is due to be inaugurated as US president for a second time on 20 January.
Trump appeared at the hearing by video link and addressed the court before he was sentenced, telling the judge the case had been a “very terrible experience” for him.
He claimed it was handled inappropriately and by someone connected with his political opponents – referring to Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg.
Trump said: “It was done to damage my reputation so I would lose the election.
“This has been a political witch hunt.
“I am totally innocent. I did nothing wrong.”
Concluding his statement, he said: “I was treated very unfairly and I thank you very much.”
The judge then told the court it was up to him to “decide what is a just conclusion with a verdict of guilty”.
He said: “Never before has this court been presented with such a unique and remarkable set of circumstances.
“This has been a truly extraordinary case.”
He added that the “trial was a bit of a paradox” because “once the doors closed it was not unique”.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass had earlier argued in court that Trump “engaged in a campaign to undermine the rule of law” during the trial.
“He’s been unrelenting in his attacks against this court, prosecutors and their family,” Mr Steinglass said.
“His dangerous rhetoric and unconstitutional conduct has been a direct attack on the rule of law and he has publicly threatened to retaliate against the prosecutors.”
Mr Steinglass said this behaviour was “designed to have a chilling effect and to intimidate”.
Trump’s lawyers argued that evidence used during the trial violated last summer’s Supreme Court ruling giving Trump broad immunity from prosecution over acts he took as president.
He was found guilty in New York of 34 counts of falsifying business records relating to payments made to Ms Daniels, an adult film actor,before he won the 2016 US election.
Prosecutors claimed he had paid her $130,000 (£105,300) in hush money to not reveal details of what Ms Daniels said was a sexual relationship in 2006.
Trump has denied any liaison with Ms Daniels or any wrongdoing.
The trial made headlines around the world but the details of the case or Trump’s conviction didn’t deter American voters from picking him as president for a second time.
What is an unconditional discharge?
Under New York state law, an unconditional discharge is a sentence imposed “without imprisonment, fine or probation supervision”.
The sentence is handed down when a judge is “of the opinion that no proper purpose would be served by imposing any condition upon the defendant’s release”, according to the law.
It means Trump’s hush money case has been resolved without any punishment that could interfere with his return to the White House.
Unconditional discharges have been handed down in previous cases where, like Trump, people have been convicted of falsifying business records.
They have also been applied in relation to low-level offences such as speeding, trespassing and marijuana-related convictions.
Leicester City’s owners have launched a landmark lawsuit against a helicopter manufacturer following the club chairman’s death in a crash in 2018.
Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha’s family are suing Italian company Leonardo SpA for £2.15bn after the 60-year-old chairman and four others were killed when their helicopter crashed just outside the King Power Stadium in October 2018.
The lawsuit is the largest fatal accident claim in English history, according to the family’s lawyers. They are asking for compensation for the loss of earnings and other damages, as a result of the billionaire’s death.
The legal action comes more than six years after the fatal crash and as an inquest into the death of the 60-year-old chairman and his fellow passengers is set to begin on Monday.
Mr Srivaddhanaprabha’s son Khun Aiyawatt Srivaddhanaprabha, who took over as the club’s chairman, said: “My family feels the loss of my father as much today as we ever have done.
“That my own children, and their cousins will never know their grandfather compounds our suffering… My father trusted Leonardo when he bought that helicopter but the conclusions of the report into his death show that his trust was fatally misplaced. I hold them wholly responsible for his death.”
The late Mr Srivaddhanaprabha’s company, King Power, was earning more than £2.5bn in revenue per year, according to his family’s lawyers. The lawsuit claims “that success was driven by Khun Vichai’s vision, drive, relationships, entrepreneurism, ingenuity and reputation.”
“All of this was lost with his death,” it adds.
The fatal crash took place shortly after the helicopter took off from Leicester’s ground following a 1-1 draw against West Ham on 27 October 2018.
The aircraft landed on a concrete step and four of the five occupants survived the initial impact, but all subsequently died in the fuel fire that engulfed the helicopter within a minute.
The other victims were two of Mr Srivaddhanaprabha’s staff, Nursara Suknamai and Kaveporn Punpare, pilot Eric Swaffer and Mr Swaffer’s girlfriend Izabela Roza Lechowicz, a fellow pilot.
Investigators found the pilot’s pedals became disconnected from the tail rotor – resulting in the aircraft making a sharp right turn which was “impossible” to control, before the helicopter spun quickly, approximately five times.
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch described this as “a catastrophic failure” and concluded the pilot was unable to prevent the crash.
The lawsuit alleges the crash was the result of ‘multiple failures’ in Leonardo’s design process. It also alleges that the manufacturer failed to warn customers or regulators about the risk.
Sky News has contacted helicopter manufacturer Leonardo for comment.