Parliamentary inquiry into Partygate is ‘fundamentally flawed’ and ‘unfair’ to Boris Johnson, top QC rules in damning verdict

• Eminent barrister slammed the approach of the probe as ‘wrong in principle’ 
• Noted that the committee of MPs includes ‘political opponents’ of Mr Johnson
• The opinion will prompt fresh calls for the latest probe into PM to be dropped  

The Parliamentary Partygate probe into Boris Johnson has today been blasted as ‘fundamentally flawed’ and ‘unfair’ to the outgoing Prime Minister, in a damning verdict by one of Britain’s top lawyers.

The devastating legal opinion by Lord Pannick QC said that the controversial investigation by MPs would be declared unlawful were it not protected from challenge in the courts.

He slammed the approach of the probe as ‘wrong in principle’ and said the committee of MPs includes ‘political opponents’ of Mr Johnson, ‘many of whom have made personal criticisms of his conduct’.

Lord Pannick QC today blasted the Partygate inquiry as ‘fundamentally flawed’ and ‘unfair’ to Boris Johnson

Lord Pannick also warned it would have a wider ‘chilling effect’ on Ministers if they could be punished for inadvertently making a mistake when addressing the House, which would impede the effective conduct of parliamentary business.

The explosive analysis by one of the country’s most eminent barristers – who has acted against the Government in high-profile Supreme Court cases – will now prompt fresh calls for the latest probe into the Prime Minister to be dropped, as he prepares to step down next week.

It comes as a close ally of Mr Johnson claimed he is likely to throw his hat in the ring for Prime Minister in the future after taking some time away to make some money – providing that he is not censured by MPs over Partygate.

Commissioned by Downing Street and published today, the legal opinion by Lord Pannick and fellow barrister Jason Pobjoy examines the way the Privileges Committee is looking into ‘whether statements made by Mr Johnson on the floor of the House of Commons as to compliance with Covid Regulations in 10 Downing Street and in the Cabinet Office were misleading and so were a contempt of the House’.

And it states categorically: ‘In our opinion, the Committee is proposing to adopt an approach to the substantive issues which is wrong in principle in important respects, and the Committee is also proposing to adopt an unfair procedure.’

It goes on to claim that were it not protected from court challenge by Parliamentary privilege, a Judicial Review brought by Mr Johnson ‘would in our view declare the approach taken by the Committee to be unlawful’.

The 22-page document lists ‘six important areas’ in which it says the probe, chaired by veteran Labour MP Harriet Harman, is taking the wrong approach.

Firstly, it has ‘failed to understand’ that it needs to prove that the PM intended to mislead the House, not just that he merely made a mistake. 

The lawyers cite Parliamentary rulebook Erskine May and previous cases that show intention is a key element of contempt, and point out that when the probe was launched MPs repeatedly referred to the issue of ‘knowingly’ misleading the House.

‘There was no suggestion that the motion had been framed so as to disapply the long-standing principle that intent was required to establish a contempt by misleading the House,’ they say.

Lord Pannick goes on to warn that the approach would have ‘very undesirable consequences’ in the future and have a ‘chilling effect on Ministerial comments in the House’.

‘Ministers would be less willing to try to be helpful in answering comments and questions during debate if they know that inadvertent mistakes which mislead the House amount to a contempt.’

He slammed the approach of the probe as ‘wrong in principle’ and said the committee of MPs includes ‘political opponents’ of Mr Johnson, ‘many of whom have made personal criticisms of his conduct’ 

Next, the legal advice says the Committee is wrong to merely conclude if the allegations against Mr Johnson are proved ‘on the balance of probabilities’.

Previous cases have used a higher standard of proof – that the allegations are ‘significantly more likely to be true than not true’.

The Committee is also told it is unfair to rely on testimony from anonymous witnesses, as this will prevent the PM from ‘drawing attention to material that might undermine its credibility such as an animus or a grudge’.

In addition, the barristers say it would be unfair for Mr Johnson not to be told the full case against him so he cannot be ‘ambushed by questions to which he had no fair opportunity to prepare himself’.

The legal eagle who took on No10 and won 

One of the finest legal minds of his generation, Lord Pannick could never be accused of being a government patsy.

In 2019, the QC represented pro-Remain campaigner Gina Miller in the Supreme Court as she challenged Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament. 

Opening the hearing, he said: ‘No Prime Minister has abused his power in the manner in which we allege in at least the last 50 years. The Prime Minister’s motive was to silence Parliament. 

Lord Pannick, pictured, secured a victory for Miss Miller and caused a huge heartache for the PM. In 2017, and again representing Miss Miller, he had successfully argued that Parliament had to give its consent to the triggering of Article 50 – the ‘starting gun’ of the Brexit process. 

Later, in an article about his involvement in the 2019 case, Lord Pannick described the ‘stench of unconstitutionality coming from 10 Downing Street’.

The crossbench peer won a scholarship to a London independent school and read law at Hertford College, Oxford. His father owned a shoe shop in east London and his mother was a school secretary.  

He should not be ‘denied the right to have a lawyer speak on their behalf at a hearing’ given the serious sanctions facing him, including being suspended from Parliament or even losing his seat in a by-election, and finally his counsel must be allowed to cross-examine witnesses.

‘The allegations against the Prime Minister are grave, and the potential penalties substantial. In such a context, it is of especial importance that the Committee ensures that it correctly directs itself on the relevant principles and adopts a procedure which is fair – and is seen to be fair.’

It comes as Labour MP Chris Bryant, chair of the Committee on Standards, questioned why the Government is paying for legal advice for a private individual.

Mr Bryant, who recused himself from chairing the investigation after his ‘vocal criticism’ of the Prime Minister over lockdown breaches, said: ‘I think it’s very odd that they’re announcing that it’s coming.

‘Secondly, I think it’s very odd that the Cabinet Office seem to have commissioned this advice on behalf of a private individual, namely the Prime Minister – that seems a very odd way to behave,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

‘Thirdly, it’s very odd for a member of the House of Lords to tell the House of Commons what to do.’

Speaking without having seen Lord Pannick’s damning analysis, Mr Bryant said it was ‘completely misleading or misjudged’ because Ministers who speak in the House should be ‘careful about what they say’ and ensure it is the ‘truth’.

He added that House of Commons processes allow ministers to correct the record via a written ministerial statement if they mis-speak.

Mr Bryant claimed MPs are trying to answer a ‘simple’ question of whether the Prime Minister ‘misled the House’ and if it amounts to contempt because he ‘didn’t correct the record swiftly enough’ and was ‘culpable’.

Meanwhile, Tory peer Lord Marland, who led Mr Johnson’s London mayoral campaign and served as trade envoy to the PM, said there was a ‘distinct possibility’ that he would again aim for No 10.

‘The scenario could be that we lose the next election, we could be looking for a leader who can win elections – and of course Boris Johnson has that,’ Lord Marland told the Daily Telegraph.

‘As he said to me the other day, he wants to go and put hay in the loft, in other words to build up his bank balance so that he can afford to pay for the lifestyle that he has created.

‘I think once he’s done that, if he is still a member of Parliament and hasn’t been found to have behaved incorrectly by the standards committee – which is a possibility – I think he does have that opportunity.’

Lord Marland added that Mr Johnson’s departure would be a ‘great loss’ to politics but ‘hopefully only temporary.’  

Source: Read Full Article