This morning, Boris Johnson’s response to the accusations against him was published in a substantial dossier to the Privileges Committee. It comes just a day before the unprecedented hearing that is likely to determine his political future.
This submission was a long time coming. In its interim report, published on 3 March, the Committee noted that it had first written to Johnson asking for his version of events as long ago as 21 July last year. Spectator books editor Sam Leith – who worked with Johnson in his former role as Daily Telegraph comment editor – suggested that this late submission was very much ‘on brand for the great man’.
What do we learn from the 52-page dossier? Well, Johnson accepts that he misled parliament. His main contention seems to be that this was not deliberate and that he ‘could not have predicted the subsequent revelations that came to light following the investigations by Sue Gray and the Metropolitan Police’.
Johnson and his advisers have also made some punchy arguments about the committee’s processes, focusing on a number of procedural issues. Johnson argues that the committee’s proceedings go beyond their remit and that it is potentially biased, complaining about the ‘partisan tone and content’ of the interim report.
None of this seems hugely convincing and, based on my two decades working as a senior parliamentary lawyer, I would suggest that some of Johnson’s defences are simply hyperbolic.
The attacks on process by his counsel, including on the standard of proof which should be used by the committee, are not new. This line of attack was also used by the late Lord Lester QC during the inquiry into his conduct in 2018 in the Lords. In a report issued by the House of Lords Conduct and Privileges Committee, the civil standard of proof (essentially that the allegations are more likely than not to be true) was accepted to be the appropriate one. It is far from clear this case merits any special treatment.
If one has a strong case, one rarely attacks the very tribunal which is about to hear it
Given the consequences for Johnson, the committee will want to be sure that it has strong evidence to back up any finding. It has already acknowledged that, since the allegations are serious, ‘evidence to be relied upon should be of especially high quality and cogency’. The submissions it has received have each been backed by a statement of truth, equivalent to an oral statement under oath. Attempts to portray the hearing as being akin to a criminal process by some commentators are disingenuous; Johnson faces no criminal sanctions.
The more general attacks on the committee rather give the impression of someone trying to get their retaliation in first. Any recommendation made by the Privileges Committee will have to be endorsed by the Commons, and I envisage that the complaints about fairness are very much designed for that audience. After all, if one has a strong case, one rarely attacks the very tribunal which is about to hear it.
It is quite shocking the lengths to which some of Johnson’s supporters have gone in an attempt to smear the committee in advance of tomorrow’s hearing. Fervent Johnson loyalist Nadine Dorries has spent the past few days making her case on Twitter, saying that the committee’s chair, Harriet Harman, has a ‘strong position of bias’. Elsewhere, Jacob Rees-Mogg labels it a ‘political committee against Boris Johnson’.
The committee has made a number of significant changes to its procedures to ensure transparency and fairness. This includes, for the first time in my experience, holding its evidence session in public. It has also appointed a former Court of Appeal judge to provide it with advice; has provided Johnson with all the witness evidence that it has received; and has published an interim report in which it has set out the substance of the case against him. The original chair, Sir Chris Bryant, recused himself after making intemperate comments about Johnson – precisely to avoid any claims of bias.
It is notable that on 16 March, the Leader of the House, Penny Mordaunt, was forced to defend the Committee on the floor of the House, stating that it was ‘doing this House a service’ and that it should be ‘permitted to get on with [its] work without fear or favour’. She said ‘a very dim view will be taken of any member who tries to prevent the committee from carrying out this serious work, or of anyone from outside the House who interferes’ adding, cryptically: ‘On a personal level, an even dimmer view will be taken of anyone from the other place [the House of Lords] who attempts to do similar.’ It is not entirely clear whether this was aimed at some of Johnson’s more devoted followers in the Lords (who have compared the committee to a kangaroo court), or his leading counsel, although I would like to think it was the former.
In addition to the attacks on process, Johnson’s evidence states that he acted in ‘good faith’ and suggests that he was under a general assumption, at the time, that events were compliant with Covid ‘rules and guidance’ at the time. At best, this may assist him in refuting the fact that he deliberately misled the House.
The challenge that Johnson will face tomorrow is that, as well as the four separate occasions that the committee has suggested that he may have misled the House (whether inadvertently, ‘recklessly or deliberately’), it has also highlighted the fact that the former prime minister ‘did not use the well-established procedures of the House to correct something that is wrong at the earliest opportunity’. This is contrary to the 1997 Resolution of the House on ministerial accountability to parliament. If Johnson is unable to rebut this interim conclusion, then such a finding could well amount to a contempt of parliament in its own right. His initial attempt, in the submission, where he argues he could not say anything while investigations by the police and Sue Gray were ongoing, appears fairly weak.
None of this means that his political career is necessarily over. The former prime minister has a knack for wriggling out of the tightest gaps, earning him the (not entirely flattering) nickname ‘the greased piglet’.
Even if the committee finds that Johnson has committed a contempt, the type of sanctions that it can recommend include anything from requiring him to apologise to the House, to proposing a suspension of ten days or more which could, in theory, lead to a recall petition and a possible by-election in his constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip. Given that its recommendation must be approved by the House of Commons, I would be surprised if the committee opted for the nuclear option unless it had very cogent evidence that Johnson had deliberately misled the House on these matters.
One prediction I am happy to make, whatever the outcome of the hearing, is that everyone in Westminster will be watching tomorrow afternoon.
Comments