Revealed: The sexual misconduct findings which led Chester MP Chris Matheson to resign

The findings of the Independent Expert Panel, published on Friday, October 21, led to Mr Matheson resigning as City of Chester Labour MP. The Labour Party had previously suspended the whip from him and asked him to stand down.

The panel upheld two allegations of 'serious sexual misconduct', and had recommended a four-week suspension from the House of Commons for Mr Matheson.

Mr Matheson had denied the allegations, and continued to do so in his resignation statement.

The complainant, the panel reported, was a junior member of Mr Matheson’s staff, a "young woman", who first made a complaint on May 21, 2021, for incidents which happened in 2019 and 2020.

The panel heard in December 2019, Mr Matheson invited the complainant on a trip to Gibraltar.

The complainant had previously been on a parliamentary delegation to a different country. However, Mr Matheson said that the trip to Gibraltar was not a parliamentary delegation trip but a private trip which he asked her to keep secret, even from her close family. The trip did not take place.

The Commissioner concluded that the complainant’s perception of the trip as being sexually motivated was reasonably held.

Mr Matheson's evidence, including his explanation as to why she should keep the trip secret (which he admitted), was held not to be credible, the panel heard.

The report added on January 22, 2020, Mr Matheson took the complainant as his guest to a formal work-related dinner at the Grosvenor Hotel in London.

The Commissioner found the following conduct, being sexual misconduct, proved:

a) The respondent linked arms with the complainant going into the dinner and on leaving it.

b) He made (positive) personal comments about her appearance on the way into the dinner, while looking at her suggestively.

c) He insisted on accompanying her afterwards to the bus stop, even though she told him that he did not need to and encouraged him to stay at the event.

d) He aggressively made her hold his hand as they left. 

e) At the bus stop (which was in a quiet and dark place), where the complainant tried to keep apart from the respondent, he invited her back to his flat (which was in the opposite direction to where she wanted to go).

f) At the bus stop, he held her in place by her arms and kissed her twice on the forehead. She described the first kiss as lasting ‘a really long lingering time’. She pulled away but had to wipe away his saliva from her forehead. He pulled her to him again for the second kiss, and she pulled away again.

g) At the bus stop, he attempted to kiss her on the mouth, but she jerked away from him.

According to the complainant, these were all unwanted and unwelcome sexual advances, which she did her best in difficult circumstances to resist. She said the respondent had been drinking heavily, he was persistent in his pursuit of her (he had earlier rebuked her publicly and aggressively at the dinner table for texting), whereas she just wanted to get away from him, get on the bus and go home.

A witness at the dinner had warned him that he was being over-familiar with her and making an idiot of himself. Later that night he sent her a text saying ‘Don’t be angry with me’.

Mr Matheson claimed that he had not invited her back to his flat or tried to kiss her on the mouth. Everything else, such as he could remember, he was minded to admit.

Mr Matheson claimed throughout that he was only taking care of the complainant, protecting her because there had been a protest against the arms trade outside the hotel before the dinner.

He said his concern for her welfare had been nothing more than ‘fatherly’, as if to a daughter. (Mr Matheson, the panel learned, is in his 50s and a married man with children.) He denied any sexual motivation.

The Commissioner considered the differing accounts given by the complainant and the respondent. The Commissioner preferred the complainant’s evidence and rejected the respondent’s account of events as not being credible.

She found the complaint proved. The respondent’s behaviour was found objectively to be conduct of a sexual nature. It was unwanted and unwelcome. 

The report said Mr Matheson did not appeal the findings or conclusions of the Commissioner, but disputed the findings in his 'reflective statement', saying in particular, he denied he had any sexual motivation in suggesting the Gibraltar trip. He did nothing wrong at all in relation to the trip, he claimed. And he denies that he had any sexual motivation in the events after the Aerospace dinner.

The panel said this statement had caused it "some difficulty."

The panel added: "He cannot now claim that the Commissioner got it all wrong in finding that he was sexually motivated. That is a clear finding that stands.

"At the oral hearing, we pointed out that paragraph 46 of the guidance for the parties states in clear terms that: Your reflective statement is not an opportunity to re-open the Commissioner’s decision.

"Undeterred, the respondent proceeded on the basis that he had not been sexually motivated. In view of the Commissioner’s findings we are unable to accept that.

"This means that the respondent remains in denial as to what he did and its true impact. This is not a point in his favour."

The panel also observed: "It is of note, for example, that, in his oral submissions to us, the respondent said that people may understand what happened about the proposed Gibraltar trip when he explains what happened.

"In other words, there is, and is likely to continue to be, a deliberate and continuing denial of the truth. We must therefore approach the question of sanction with this in mind."

The panel said the impact of the sexual misconduct "had a profoundly painful impact" on the complainant and her family, "causing her serious harm and affecting her health and wellbeing."

It added: "She felt that she was belittled and humiliated by his conduct, exploited by his use of the power dynamic between them, and in the end preyed upon."

The sub-panel concluded, based on the conduct the Commissioner found to have been proved, that: "There is no doubt that [Mr Matheson] was seeking to initiate a sexual relationship with the complainant, his junior employee.

"This wished-for relationship was unwanted and unwelcome throughout. The evidence confirms that his actions were entirely non-consensual, as well as threatening, intimidating, undermining and humiliating for the complainant."

Mitigating factors identified by the sub-panel included that Mr Matheson had expressed remorse for the actions he had admitted, and their impact; stated that he had subsequently gained insight on the inappropriateness of his management style and made changes as a result; the impact of the complaint on Mr Matheson’s health, and family circumstances; and that there was no evidence before or since the incidents complained of other sexual misconduct.

It had recommended Mr Matheson be suspended "from the service of the House for four weeks."

Mr Matheson had appealed the findings on September 13, on the grounds that it was unreasonable; fresh evidence had become available that could not have been presented to the original sub-panel; and that there were other compelling reasons for the appeal to be allowed.

The appeal subpanel concluded that none of the grounds of appeal advanced by Mr Matheson had substance. It therefore upheld the determination of the original sub-panel.

Mr Matheson, in his resignation statement, said: "From the start I accepted I had committed a minor breach of the code and had hoped that an honest and open approach would stand me in a fair light.

“This has proven not to be the case and I am dismayed that I have been found guilty of several allegations that I know to be untrue.

"Indeed my insistence on what I know to be true – that I had no sexual motivation in this matter – was held against me as a refusal to accept my guilt, and caused an increased sanction which I felt was disproportionate.

“Despite provable factual inaccuracies in the sanctions report, my appeal against sanction was not even considered, for the same reason.

“Therefore, I faced a suspension from the House of four weeks. Whilst I believe that this is an excessive and unfair penalty, I cannot challenge the process further.

“I believe that the honourable and right thing to do now is to resign my seat and seek to rebuild my life elsewhere.”

A Labour spokesman said: “This is an incredibly serious case. There must be a zero tolerance for sexual harassment and the Labour party has acted immediately following the ICGS (Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme) findings.

“We will now select a candidate that the people of Chester can be proud to vote for.”

A by-election will be held in the city, likely in the next three months.