The former MP for Hartlepool committed two breaches of Parliament’s sexual misconduct rules and would have been suspended had he not already resigned.
Ex-Labour Mike Hill stepped down from his role in March after being notified of the ruling, triggering the Hartlepool by-election.
A panel said the former MP would have faced a significant sanction had he not already resigned.
The Independent Expert Panel (IEP) ruled Mr Hill had broken the rules twice in relation to his behaviour towards a woman – at his parliamentary office and his flat.
The panel said that, if Mr Hill was still an MP, it “would have likely considered recommending the sanction of suspension from the House”.
The panel, set up in June 2020, considers appeals made against rulings by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
A former member of parliamentary staff had accused Mr Hill of sexually harassing her and bullying her over a 16-month period, groping her and rubbing himself against her.
The commission found Mr Hill acted in breach of Parliament’s sexual misconduct policy in respect of one of the three allegations made by a woman.
Both Mr Hill and the woman appealed against the ruling and the independent panel has now concluded the commission’s decision had not been tough enough, instead finding the former MP had actually breached the rules in two of the three allegations.
It found a third allegation, of workplace victimisation and discrimination, unproven.
In the report, the IEP said Mr Hill attended a virtual hearing on 25 March to discuss the panel’s findings during which he said he was “mortified” by the panel’s conclusion and said he had “got himself ‘into a stupid situation of my own’”.
Mr Hill, however, continued to deny the allegations and did not acknowledge the sexual misconduct “or the impact of it”, making no apology and implying no regret.
“There was nothing in the nature of a reflective statement on misconduct proved. He expressed remorse, but only for the circumstances in which he now found himself,” the report said. “He did, however, say that he had reflected upon the decision. He recognised the seriousness of the findings against him and when asked if he had taken steps to address the behaviour found proved, he said, ‘Yes, Sir. I resigned.’”
Sir Stephen Irwin, chairman of the IEP, said: “The sub-panel took a very serious view of his conduct, and had he remained a member of Parliament, a significant sanction would have been under consideration.
“In the light of his resignation, however, the sub-panel concluded that no available sanction met the facts of this case and the specific circumstances of the responder. They therefore did not impose or recommend a sanction.”
Mr Hill was notified of the panel’s decision to reject his appeal on 5 March and he resigned on 16 March.
The panel did not recommend to the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, that Mr Hill should have his parliamentary pass revoked. But Sir Lindsay decided to strip the former member of his access regardless.
An employment tribunal has also been held into the case, with a decision yet to be announced. The panel delayed publication of its findings until the conclusion of the employment tribunal on Wednesday.