UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2023-000064 - [2025] UKUT 00203 (TCC)

Mr Jonathan Davidson – Between September 2015 and December 2020, Mr Davidson was the Director of the Retail Supervision and Authorisations Division at the Authority. As Director of that Division, he was responsible for the supervision of some of the UK’s largest retail financial institutions, including Barclays. Mr Davidson’s evidence covers the call between the Authority and Mr Nigel Higgins, the Group Chairman of Barclays, which took place on 15 August 2019. Mr Davidson’s evidence is that during that call he asked Mr Higgins what Barclays had done to satisfy itself that there was no impropriety in any relationship between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein that would cast doubt on Mr Staley’s fit and proper status. His evidence also covers (i) a further call on 4 October 2019 following which the Letter was issued and (ii) his involvement in the process that led to the decision (which he approved) to open the investigation into Mr Staley’s conduct in relation to the Letter on 10 December 2019.

We are critical later in this decision of the failure of the Authority to have made adequate records of the conversations that Mr Davidson had with Mr Higgins in August and October 2019 which has made our task more difficult in determining the scope of the enquiry made of Barclays through Mr Davidson. Inevitably, therefore Mr Davidson’s evidence was somewhat defensive on this issue. It was also the case that Mr Davidson was unable to assist the Tribunal as much as we would have hoped as regards whether it was he who asked for the “no close relationship” language to be added to the Letter after the draft was read to him over the telephone by Mr Higgins. Nevertheless, we accept that Mr Davidson did his best to assist the Tribunal despite his lack of recall of some of the key events.

Mr Andrew Bailey – Mr Bailey iscurrently the Governor of the Bank of England. Between 1 July 2016 and 15 March 2020 Mr Bailey was CEO of the Authority. Mr Bailey’s evidence covers the importance of the fit and proper regime in the regulatory framework and his conversation with Mr Davidson, in light of press coverage about the relationship between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein, regarding the need to obtain assurance from Barclays as to the steps it had taken to assess Mr Staley’s fitness and propriety. Mr Bailey also deals with the Authority’s reliance on the Letter which led it to decide that no further action was required at that time in relation to Mr Staley’s relationship with Mr Epstein, the subsequent contact from JPM, the decision to compel the provision of material by JPM given its relevance to the Authority’s enquiry to Barclays regarding Mr Staley’s relationship with Mr Epstein and discussions with Mr Higgins which took place after the Authority’s investigation commenced in December 2019.

Mr Bailey was a straightforward witness who did his best to answer the questions put to him and assist the Tribunal.

Mr Stephen Doherty – Mr Doherty at the relevant time was Group Head of Corporate Relations at Barclays. His evidence deals with communications he had with the press regarding Mr Staley’s relationship with Mr Epstein and his discussions with Mr Staley on that subject in October 2015 prior to Mr Staley becoming the CEO of Barclays. His evidence also covers events in July 2019 when there was further press interest in relation to the same issue, including the information Mr Staley provided to him regarding his relationship with Mr Epstein to enable Mr Doherty to respond to those enquiries. In addition, Mr Doherty’s evidence covered the help that he provided to Mr Staley and others in September 2019 in Mr Staley’s response to enquiries made by his alma mater Bowdoin College, where he was a Trustee, as to his relationship with Mr Epstein. In that regard, Mr Doherty was involved in the drafting of what were known as the Bowdoin College Talking Points.

Mr Doherty was an impressive and straightforward witness with a clear memory of the relevant events on which he was cross examined. We have therefore accepted his evidence in full.

Mr Nigel Higgins – Mr Higgins is the Group Chairman of the Barclays Group, having joined the Board in March 2019. He became Group Chairman in May 2019. His evidence covers (i) his discussions with Mr Staley about the latter’s relationship with Mr Epstein (ii) his discussions with the Authority and others on that matter between August and October 2019 which led to the issue of the Letter including his understanding of the scope of Mr Davidson’s enquiry (iii) his interactions with Mr Hoyt during preparation of the response to the Authority’s enquiry and (iv) the discussions with the Authority which led to the opening of the investigation into Mr Staley’s conduct in December 2019.

In common with Mr Davidson, Mr Higgins did not have a clear recollection of the details of the conversations that took place between the two of them in August and October 2019 and in the absence of adequate documentary records of those conversations the discrepancies in their respective accounts have been difficult to resolve. However, we found Mr Higgins to be a straightforward witness who did his best to assist the Tribunal with his answers, and we have preferred his evidence on the two conversations over the evidence of Mr Davidson as being more plausible in the light of our overall assessment of the circumstances in which the calls took place. There are also discrepancies between the evidence of Mr Higgins, Mr Hoyt and Ms Wiggins as regards some of the matters that we need to resolve, but we reiterate that Mr Higgins was doing his best to assist the Tribunal with his answers.

Mr Mark Steward – From October 2015 until April 2023, Mr Steward was the Executive Director of the Enforcement and Market Oversight Division of the Authority. His evidence covers his own involvement in the Authority’s request for information from Barclays in August 2019, the subsequent decision to open the investigation into Mr Staley’s conduct in December 2019 and his interactions with Mr Higgins, Mr Hoyt and Barclays’ external lawyers after the investigation had been opened.

We found Mr Steward to be a straightforward witness doing his best to assist the Tribunal with his answers during a very brief cross-examination.

Ms Sasha Wiggins– Ms Wiggins is the CEO of Barclays Private Bank and Wealth Management. She was Group Chief of Staff to Mr Staley from 2018 until his resignation in November 2021. Her evidence covers her knowledge regarding the relationship between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein. In particular, she gave evidence as to her role in discussing the 2019 press enquiries as well as assisting Mr Staley in the preparation of the Bowdoin College Talking Points with Mr Staley, Mr Doherty, Mr Hoyt and Mr Farmer (Mr Staley’s personal lawyer) and amending them as requested by Mr Staley. Ms Wiggins attended a meeting with the Bowdoin College’s Board of Trustees with Mr Staley in September 2019 and gave evidence as to how Mr Staley described his relationship with Mr Epstein during the meeting, the questions posed by the Trustees to Mr Staley and Mr Staley’s answers. Ms Wiggins also gave evidence as to her understanding of the enquiry made by the Authority, when she became aware of it and the initial intention to use the Bowdoin College Talking Points as a basis for Mr Staley to write to Mr Higgins setting out the nature of the relationship.

Ms Wiggins was a straightforward witness who was clear and firm in her succinct answers to questions which were delivered with confidence. There was one matter in respect of which it was necessary to recall Ms Wiggins. This was because the original of a document on which Ms Wiggins, based on a copy of that document, had previously given evidence was, just before he was due to give evidence, produced by Mr Hoyt. It was apparent that the evidence given by Ms Wiggins on the basis of a copy of that document may have been incorrect. Ms Wiggins corrected her evidence as a result of seeing the original document after her recall. Originally, Ms Wiggins was clear in her evidence that she could not have deleted a particular sentence from the document as she considered it to be correct but when recalled she accepted that she must have done so. Although she could not explain why she deleted the sentence in question, we do not consider that she sought to mislead the Tribunal and we consider that she did her best to assist the Tribunal in her evidence.

Mr Robert Hoyt – Mr Hoyt was at the relevant time Group General Counsel at Barclays. His evidence covered (i) his conversations with Mr Staley regarding his relationship with Mr Epstein and his last date of contact with Mr Epstein (ii) the assistance he provided with Barclays’ response to enquiries made by the media and others about Mr Staley’s relationship with Mr Epstein (iii) his understanding of the scope of the August 2019 enquiry from the Authority (iv) his involvement in the drafting of the Bowdoin College Talking Points (v) the preparation, content and amendment of the Letter and (vi) the assistance he provided to Barclays in relation to the preparation of the Letter.

We found Mr Hoyt to be a straightforward witness doing his best to assist the Tribunal with his answers. As we have mentioned, there are discrepancies between the evidence of Mr Higgins, Mr Hoyt and Ms Wiggins as regards some of the matters that we need to resolve, which is perhaps inevitable in the absence of documentary evidence relating to the matters in respect of which discrepancies arose. We reiterate, however, that Mr Hoyt was doing his best to assist the Tribunal with his answers. Mr Hoyt also quite properly drew to the attention of the parties and the Tribunal that he had in his possession the original of the document which may have led Ms Wiggins to give an inaccurate answer in her cross-examination to a question based on a copy of that document. Mr Hoyt cooperated with the parties and the Tribunal in preparing a short supplemental witness statement explaining the circumstances in which the original document still remained in his possession. It was perhaps surprising that Mr Hoyt still had the original document in his possession, some years after he had left Barclays.