Translate the text from English to Welsh.



 
On 27 March 2019, the High Court handed down its judgement in the judicial review brought by Bernadette Sargeant in relation to the procedure intended to govern the independent QC\-led investigation, which had been established to look into the actions and decisions of the former First Minister in relation to Carl Sargeant’s departure from the Cabinet in November 2017\.


The court concluded that by taking decisions on the procedures to be followed by the independent investigation, the former First Minister acted contrary to undertakings, which had been set out in a press statement in November 2017\. This had stated that the preparatory arrangements for the investigation would be made separately from his office. 


The court found those undertakings were legally enforceable and concluded it was not reasonable for the former First Minister to depart from them.


The court granted the application for judicial review, noting the defendants – the former First Minister and the Permanent Secretary – were “unfortunately, led into error by a collective misunderstanding of the legal position”.


But the court rejected the remaining grounds of Mrs Sargeant’s challenge, including the challenge under the Human Rights Act 1998\.


As a result of the court’s judgement, a number of questions raised in May 2018 in the operational protocol for the investigation now need to be revisited. These are:


* Whether any oral evidence given to the independent investigator should be heard in private (paragraph 30 of the operational protocol);
* Whether to empower the independent investigator to refuse to permit the claimant and the family of Mr Sargeant to attend hearings if attendance will cause a witness to withdraw his or her consent to give evidence (paragraph 30 of the operational protocol);
* Whether to refuse to permit the claimant and the family of Mr Sargeant to ask questions of any witnesses through their legal representative (paragraph 32 of the operational protocol).


Prior to my appointment as First Minister, I was not involved in the development of the operational protocol. Nevertheless, I have concluded that, in light of the High Court judgement, these issues should be reconsidered independently of myself and the Welsh Government.


To ensure this consideration can take place, without reference to any previous remit, Jonathan Jones QC, Treasury Solicitor and Head of the UK Government Legal Department has agreed to undertake this work. 


He will consider the judgement, the relevant documentation and all the previous representations, which have been made about the operational protocol in reaching his conclusions. In the interests of openness, I intend to publish the letter I send to Mr Jones confirming the scope of this task.


This process should be concluded before the coroner’s inquest is completed and the resulting operational protocol will be published. It will not be fully finalised, however, until the inquest proceedings have also been completed. If any additional reconsideration is appropriate at that stage, I will publish any further remit letter issued. 


I want this process to take place because, without making any final decisions at this stage, I would wish the operational protocol to remain a course of action open to me at the point when the coroner’s inquiry has been completed and its conclusions have been published. 


Once the coroner’s inquest has concluded, there will be a consultation with the Sargeant family and other interested parties before a decision is made about the next steps in the independent investigation.


It is my intention to publish the leak inquiry report after the coroner’s inquest. At that point, all the relevant reports, which relate to Carl Sargeant’s sad and untimely death, will be published in one place – the outcome of the coroner’s inquest, the operational protocol (including any updates to the protocol), the leak inquiry report and the Hamilton report.


I am copying this statement directly to Ann Jones AM, Deputy Presiding Officer and chair of the Committee for Scrutiny of the First Minister, which meets on Friday April 5\.







Translation:


 
Ar 27 Mawrth 2019, cyhoeddodd yr Uchel Lys ei ddyfarniad yn yr adolygiad barnwrol a oedd wedi’i ddwyn gerbron gan Bernadette Sargeant, yn ymwneud â’r weithdrefn y bwriedid ei defnyddio i lywio’r ymchwiliad annibynnol o dan arweiniad un o Gwnsleriaid y Frenhines. Roedd yr ymchwiliad wedi’i sefydlu i edrych ar weithredoedd a phenderfyniadau’r cyn Brif Weinidog mewn perthynas ag ymadawiad Carl Sargeant â’r Cabinet ym mis Tachwedd 2017\. 


Daeth y llys i’r casgliad fod y cyn Brif Weinidog, wrth wneud penderfyniadau am y gweithdrefnau i’w dilyn gan yr ymchwiliad annibynnol, wedi gweithredu’n groes i’r hyn yr ymgymerwyd i’w wneud mewn datganiad i’r wasg ym mis Tachwedd 2017\. Roedd y datganiad yn nodi y byddai’r trefniadau paratoadol ar gyfer yr ymchwiliad yn cael eu gwneud yn annibynnol ar ei swyddfa ef. 


Daeth y llys i’r casgliad fod yr hyn yr ymgymerwyd i’w wneud yn orfodadwy yn gyfreithiol ac nad oedd yn rhesymol i’r cyn Brif Weinidog wyro oddi wrth hynny. 


Caniataodd y llys y cais am adolygiad barnwrol, gan nodi bod y diffynyddion \- y cyn Brif Weinidog a’r Ysgrifennydd Parhaol \- yn anffodus, wedi’u harwain at gamgymeriad oherwydd camddealltwriaeth o’r sefyllfa gyfreithiol gan y naill a’r llall. 


Ond gwrthododd y llys yr hyn a oedd yn sail i weddill her Mrs Sargeant, gan gynnwys yr her o dan Ddeddf Hawliau Dynol 1998\.


Yn sgil dyfarniad y llys, mae angen ailedrych yn awr at nifer o gwestiynau a godwyd ym mis Mai 2018 yn y protocol gweithredol ar gyfer yr ymchwiliad, sef:


* A ddylai unrhyw dystiolaeth lafar a roddir i’r ymchwilydd annibynnol gael ei chlywed yn breifat (paragraff 30 o’r protocol gweithredol);
* A ddylai’r ymchwilydd annibynnol gael y pŵer i wrthod caniatáu i’r hawlydd a theulu Mr Sargeant fynychu gwrandawiadau os bydd y ffaith eu bod yn bresennol yn achosi i dyst dynnu’n ôl er ei fod wedi cydsynio i roi tystiolaeth (paragraff 30 o’r protocol gweithredol);
* A ddylid gwrthod caniatáu i’r hawlydd a theulu Mr Sargeant ofyn cwestiynau i unrhyw dyst drwy eu cynrychiolydd cyfreithiol (paragraff 32 o’r protocol gweithredol).


Cyn cael fy mhenodi’n Brif Weinidog, ni chymerais ran yn y broses o ddatblygu’r protocol gweithredol. Er hynny, rwyf wedi dod i’r casgliad, yn sgil dyfarniad yr Uchel Lys, y dylai’r materion hyn gael eu hailystyried yn annibynnol arnaf i a Llywodraeth Cymru. 


Er mwyn sicrhau bod modd i’r broses ystyried hon ddigwydd, heb gyfeirio at unrhyw gylch gwaith blaenorol, mae Jonathan Jones CF, Cyfreithiwr y Trysorlys a Phennaeth Adran Gyfreithiol Llywodraeth y DU wedi cytuno i ymgymryd â’r gwaith. 


Wrth lunio’i gasgliadau, bydd yn ystyried y dyfarniad, y dogfennau perthnasol a’r holl sylwadau blaenorol sydd wedi’u gwneud am y protocol gweithredol. Er mwyn bod yn agored, rwy’n bwriadu cyhoeddi’r llythyr y byddaf yn ei anfon at Mr Jones yn cadarnhau cwmpas y dasg hon. 


Dylai’r broses fod wedi’i chwblhau cyn i gwest y crwner ddod i ben a bydd y protocol gweithredol a fydd yn deillio ohoni yn cael ei gyhoeddi. Fodd bynnag, ni fydd modd iddo fod yn hollol derfynol hyd nes y bydd trafodion y cwest wedi’u cwblhau hefyd. Os bydd yn briodol ailystyried unrhyw beth ymhellach ar y cam hwnnw, byddaf yn cyhoeddi unrhyw lythyr cylch gwaith arall a gaiff ei lunio.


Rwyf am i’r broses hon ddigwydd, heb wneud unrhyw benderfyniadau terfynol ar hyn o bryd, oherwydd fy mod yn awyddus i’r protocol gweithredol barhau’n drywydd sy’n agored imi pan fydd ymchwiliad y crwner wedi dod i ben a’i gasgliadau wedi’u cyhoeddi.


Unwaith y bydd cwest y crwner wedi dod i ben, ymgynghorir â’r teulu Sargeant ac â phartïon eraill â buddiant cyn gwneud penderfyniad ynglŷn â chamau nesaf yr ymchwiliad annibynnol.  

  

Ar ôl cwest y crwner, rwy’n bwriadu cyhoeddi adroddiad yr ymchwiliad ynglŷn â rhyddhau gwybodaeth heb ganiatâd. Yr adeg honno, bydd yr holl adroddiadau perthnasol sy’n ymwneud â marwolaeth drist ac annhymig Carl Sargeant yn cael eu cyhoeddi mewn un lle \- canlyniad cwest y crwner, y protocol gweithredol (gan gynnwys unrhyw ddiweddariadau iddo), adroddiad yr ymchwiliad i ryddhau gwybodaeth, ac adroddiad Hamilton.


Rwy’n anfon copi o’r datganiad hwn yn uniongyrchol at Ann Jones AC, y Dirprwy Lywydd a chadeirydd y Pwyllgor Craffu ar Waith y Prif Weinidog, sy’n cwrdd ddydd Gwener, 5 Ebrill.