Did Boris Johnson, BJ, deliberately mislead Parliament over Downing Street gatherings during the pandemic? According to the Privileges Committee’s Report published last week, he did and lied to MPs in saying that he thought the gatherings were compliant with regulations in the broadest sense, and in saying that he had received assurances to that effect. In effect, the Report states he lied to the Privileges Committee (PC) too.
FAIRNESS
It is to the UK’s benefit that BJ has left Parliament, having resigned as an MP. Of course, he may very well have lied, but it is right to ask again whether the Privileges Committee (“PC”) had enough evidence to prove that he knowingly and deliberately misled MPs. There remains a question mark over the degree to which the PC complied with natural justice requirements or was guilty of bias. Is it fair perhaps to suggest that any quasi-judicial body of this type, with power in effect to destroy the Parliamentary life of those brought before it, should behave according to standards applicable to a legal court? In the Sherbhert article Fraudsters, Liars ……., this was seriously questioned. If fairness is to be observed, no person can be in a position of judgement over another, if there is risk of bias. There can be no doubt that nearly all the members of the Committee suffered from that risk. Some had before their appointment recorded their view that BJ had lied to Parliament, for example the Chairperson, Harriet Harman. Others were serious opponents of Brexit, for which Remainers held BJ largely responsible rightly or wrongly, and at least one member was known to seriously dislike BJ. It must be remembered too that before the investigation began much of the media and various leading public figures, such as the leaders of the Labour party and the SNP, had declared BJ guilty of lying to Parliament.
Reading the report leads to at least a serious suspicion that the members had made their minds up before hearing the evidence and made their report justify that conclusion. Two particular approaches stated in the Report, which are fundamental to their justifying their findings, point in that direction. And a third indicates a real insecurity among members of the Committee and their spurious attitude to free speech and to the right of defendants to defend themselves.
WHAT GATHERINGS COULD BE ESSENTIAL FOR WORK?
Covid rules prohibited gatherings but exempted those necessary for work, and there is no exhaustive statement in the rules of what qualifies for that exemption. It is down to judgement, and it is fair to say, that during Covid, Police decisions on Covid breaches were themselves unreliable due to the broad language in the legislation. BJ’s defence hinged seriously on his stated belief that these were work gatherings, necessary particularly to keep up morale and keep people motivated in very difficult circumstances.
The Police who investigated the gatherings have not stated that they did not qualify for the exemption, and by implication thought they may have done as BJ was only fined for one he attended. Yet the PC are categoric that a gathering for morale and motivational purposes in effect could never be exempt, thus setting themselves up as the arbiters of the rules, for which they were no more qualified than the advisers who BJ consulted. They may possibly be right, but that is doubtful. In any serious workplace or business or very stressful situation, to get the best out of people and keep them productive, possibly the number one priority for leaders is morale boosting and motivation. Undoubtedly the working conditions at Downing Street did not lend themselves to people keeping separate. Workers there had to attend and so Covid risk was high. Just as morale and motivation should have been at the top of the priorities for the NHS, so too they should have been at the most important decision-making venue in the country, 10 Downing Street. The pandemic was frequently likened to a war situation; by analogy, morale and motivation could well be the difference between winning and losing the war in Ukraine.
Of course, the PC’s sweeping view in this respect undermines completely BJ’s defence. But is it a right view or is it a view which was necessary to justify a conclusion of guilt?
DID BJ RECEIVE ASSURANCES AS TO COMPLIANCE?
The PC seem to accept that BJ did receive assurances from advisers that the gatherings were compliant, but they were not advisers who the PC considered the right ones. Rather they consider he should have got senior lawyers or officials to advise on the point. They concluded that he therefore lied or was reckless because he relied on the wrong advisers, but if he believed the gatherings were necessary for work, why ask further afield about compliance? They also seem to accept that there is no evidence that at any time BJ was told the gatherings were non-compliant. Despite what relevant officials may have told the PC, if they were concerned about the compliance of such gatherings, was it not the job, the duty, of those officials to raise those concerns formally, and advise the PM accordingly? It surely was not for the Prime Minister to police his workplace, but that was the job of his senior executives. Yet no such executive has been found accountable for failing to do that job?
THE REPORT’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED PUNISHMENTS
BJ vigorously defended himself as he was entitled to do. Defendants are entitled to question their judges’ impartiality if there could be doubt. They are entitled to disagree with their judges’ findings and say so. Yet the PC states expressly they dealt out harsher punishments due to, in effect, BJ’s aggression towards the process and the members of the PC. Was he not entitled to an opinion? Does the PC’s approach pass the fairness smell test? In addition, MPs who support BJ have attacked the PC’s report and the members’ motives. Are not MPs allowed to express negative views about other MPs? Is that not what happens every day? But the PC is now threatening to investigate their critics. In a free society are the PC members not to be criticised?
To repeat, BJ may have deliberately misled Parliament. It is possible too that he turned a blind eye to compliance in circumstances where nobody was telling him there was a problem. Naturally, numerous people find him guilty because they see him as a serial liar, and so conclude he is bound to have lied. More than one commentator has suggested he had it coming to him for all his nefarious past crimes, for which he was never put on trial. But the PC were entitled only to judge whether he lied to Parliament: there were no previous convictions to be taken into account.
Fairness and properness, absence of bias and prejudice in its literal sense, and free speech in defence are essential values for all tribunals. It is surely valid to question this tribunal where the protagonists are all political, not independent or judicially competent, and whether there is a lesson for the future in how Parliament ousts its own where the person in question is unwelcome for so many different reasons, some personal. Is it not perhaps a dereliction of their role that the media questioned so little the process and so the outcome? Their objectivity is seriously to be questioned when reading the vitriol and glee greeting the demise of BJ’s political career. Should perhaps all people, even if they are happy to see him gone, feel some discomfort with the manner of BJ’s execution? Even if Themis herself may have disapproved of BJ would she now be happy?
