The Liberal Democrats asked three independent adjudicators, who are party members, to reassess Rennard's conduct after receiving advice that a 2013 investigation into the claims made by four women was “flawed in several respects”. It is understood that the panel concluded, after taking legal advice, that without new evidence the case could not be reopened. Davey suspended Rennard earlier this year after the investigation was reopened amid claims a previous inquiry was flawed.
Rennard, the party's former chief executive who was awarded a life peerage in 1999, has been subject to a series of investigations by police and lawyers that concluded the allegations could not be proved. He has said he apologises if he “inadvertently encroached” on anyone's “personal space”. The four claimants are former deputy party chair Alison Goldsworthy, the academic Alison Smith, Bridget Harris, a former adviser to Nick Clegg, and former councillor Susan Gaszczak.
Davey said: “People will share my disappointment and upset that the independent process has come to this conclusion but it is rightly independent. The women who made complaints were let down by a flawed investigation 13 years ago, which is why we've changed the system, and it is deeply frustrating that they are now let down again because the process has concluded that this cannot be reinvestigated.” He added that he had complete confidence that the current complaints system would handle a new complaint of this nature “in a wholly different and much more reliable way”. Davey has previously said he does not believe Rennard should be a member of the party or the House of Lords but does not have the power to remove him.
In a statement, Rennard said the allegations had been “thoroughly and professionally investigated and dismissed by both police and by independent inquiries over 17 months in 2013-14”. He said the large volume of evidence that led Alistair Webster KC to dismiss the complaints remains confidential, and there was no basis for suggesting a different process could have come to any other conclusion. He noted that the appeal by the unsuccessful complainants against Webster's decision was dismissed, and that the party constitution described such panel decisions as “final and binding on all the parties”. Rennard said the complaints panel, which met on 11 October and whose decision he was informed of today, was “very damning of the party”. He said the legal advice the complaint relied upon was never properly made known. He criticised the party for taking nine months to dismiss the complaint, saying the delay had been “unfairly damaging to me and my wife, to the party of which we have both been members for over 50 years, and to the many good causes and good people that we support”. His solicitor, Richard Cannon, said the renewed complaint had been “legally flawed from the outset and should never have been brought”.
Webster's 2013 review concluded there was a less than 50% chance of the case against Rennard being proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but Webster said there was “broadly credible” evidence of “behaviour which violated the personal space and autonomy of the complainants”.