MPs dismiss lawyer's claim Partygate probe was 'fundamentally flawed'

Partygate probe fiasco: Boris Johnson allies hit back as MPs dismiss claims by top lawyer that probe into Downing Street gatherings was ‘fundamentally flawed’

• MPs investigating Boris Johnson over Partygate rejected claims probe is ‘unfair’
• Privileges Committee looking at what he told Parliament about covid rule-breaks
• Lord Pannick KC was hired by Government to examine the committee’s methods
• He said inquiry would be declared unlawful if not protected from court challenge
• Committee dismissed his concerns, leading to fury from former PM’s allies

MPs investigating Boris Johnson over Partygate have rejected claims by one of Britain’s leading lawyers that their probe is ‘unfair’ and ‘fundamentally flawed’.

The Privileges Committee is examining what the former Prime Minister told Parliament about Covid rule-breaking before he left office.

Lord Pannick KC, who was hired by the Government to examine the committee’s methods, had warned that the controversial inquiry would be declared unlawful – were it not protected from challenge in the courts.

Yet the committee has dismissed Lord Pannick’s concerns wholesale, leading to a furious reaction from allies of the former PM.

Lord Pannick KC, who was hired by the Government to examine the committee’s methods, had warned that the controversial inquiry would be declared unlawful – were it not protected from challenge in the courts

The committee’s members insisted yesterday that the top lawyer’s devastating verdict was based on a ‘misunderstanding’ of the parliamentary process and ‘misplaced’ comparisons with criminal cases. 

They also rejected his warning it would have a ‘chilling effect’ on democracy for the former PM to be reprimanded for inadvertently misleading the Commons.

‘We reject Lord Pannick’s criticisms. The view of our impartial legal advisers and clerks, which we accept, is that his opinion is founded on a systemic misunderstanding of the parliamentary process and misplaced analogies with the criminal law,’ a spokesman for the committee said.

Last night a furious former Cabinet minister hit back, saying: ‘I don’t know what they think they’re trying to do – it’s a very strange position they’ve got themselves into. They should just drop the whole inquiry.’

Backbencher Michael Fabricant added: ‘The Privileges Committee is choosing not to operate on the basis of common law. The committee is in effect accepting that they are not adopting a fair standard.

‘Frankly I think they stand condemned for doing so and bring Parliament into disrepute.’ Yesterday’s report by the committee, chaired by veteran Labour MP Harriet Harman, set out to rebut one by one the ‘six important areas’ in which Lord Pannick criticised the inquiry into Mr Johnson’s comments to MPs last year on the lockdown-breaking parties in Downing Street.

The Privileges Committee has dismissed Lord Pannick’s concerns wholesale, leading to a furious reaction from allies of former PM Boris Johnson

Firstly, it said the barrister was wrong to have claimed that Mr Johnson’s intention would not be taken into account.

‘Nothing in the impartial advice from the clerk of the journals precludes the committee from considering intent,’ the MPs insisted.

They went on to say that Lord Pannick’s fears of a wider chilling effect on politicians’ statements were ‘wholly misplaced’, pointing out that ministers already make 200 formal corrections a year to remarks made in error.

Next, the MPs dismissed his claim that the inquiry should use the criminal standard of proof – beyond reasonable doubt – rather than the less rigorous balance of probabilities. ‘In the present inquiry, because the allegations are very serious, we are mindful that evidence to be relied upon should be of especially high quality and cogency,’ they stated.

Backbench MP Michael Fabricant said: ‘The Privileges Committee is choosing not to operate on the basis of common law’

The report also sought to reassure the barrister that its probe will not rely on anonymous testimony. ‘We have not yet identified any credible evidence where a witness wishes to have their identity withheld from Mr Johnson, and it may be that this situation does not arise,’ the MPs said.

Similarly they insisted that, contrary to Lord Pannick’s concerns, the former PM will be given full details of the case against him.Lord Pannick’s final two criticisms were of the fact that Mr Johnson cannot get a lawyer to act for him or cross-examine witnesses.

‘Select committees can only hear counsel if authorised to do so by the House. It has not been considered necessary in previous privileges cases,’ the committee said.

The MPs even hit out at the Government for publishing Lord Pannick’s legal advice earlier this month rather than submitting it to them directly.

And they condemned attacks on their probe, which has been branded a witch-hunt by supporters of Mr Johnson, saying ‘they appear to be designed to impede the functioning of the House’.

The Privileges Committee’s investigation is the third into Mr Johnson and the events that took place in Whitehall when Covid laws banned social gatherings, following the inquiry by senior civil servant Sue Gray and Scotland Yard’s criminal case.

The former PM was fined £50 in April over a birthday party organised for him during the first lockdown. MPs then looked into if he had misled the Commons last December when he said ‘all guidance was followed completely’.

Once the committee has delivered its findings, all MPs will vote on its recommendations – and if Mr Johnson is found in contempt and suspended from the Commons for more than ten days, then he could face a by-election in his Uxbridge constituency.

These puffed-up worthies have shown contempt for natural justice 

Commentary by ANDREW TETTENBORN

Lord Pannick KC has one of the finest legal minds in the country. His advice that the Commons probe against Boris Johnson is unfair and flawed was argued with devastating clarity when he delivered it earlier this month – and looked to many like a slam-dunk against the ex-PM’s critics.

In flatly rejecting his views, the Commons Privileges Committee has shown contempt for natural justice. It has insulted the principles of fairness and decency for which this country is famed.

The Commons Privileges Committee is led by Labour veteran Harriet Harman

Indeed, these puffed-up worthies go so far as to arrogantly accuse perhaps Britain’s most respected public lawyer of a ‘systemic misunderstanding of the parliamentary process’. The cheek of it!

In case you had forgotten, Boris is accused of ‘contempt’ in the House of Commons, having allegedly misled MPs over the ‘Partygate’ affair – that storm in a teacup from which the rest of us long ago moved on.

Lord Pannick pointed out a number of glaring flaws in the Committee’s approach – and rightly warned that for Boris to be censured for unintentionally misleading the House would have a ‘chilling effect’ on democracy.

But in a statement yesterday, the committee, led by Labour veteran Harriet Harman, dismissed these arguments out of hand. Harman’s own views on Boris are clear. She tweeted in April that Boris and his then-chancellor Rishi Sunak ‘misled’ the Commons by accepting a fine for breaching Covid regulations.

She also shared a blog by ex-Labour press secretary Alastair Campbell that claimed the former PM ‘broke [his] own emergency laws’, ‘lied repeatedly’ and ‘trashed the ministerial code’.

How can a woman like this possibly head a fair inquiry? This has looked like a witch-hunt from the start. Harman herself stepped in only when the previous head, her Labour colleague Chris Bryant, recused himself after ranting on social media: ‘The PM broke the law, repeatedly lied to Parliament and refused to correct the record.’ Bryant concluded Johnson was ‘not fit for office’.

Harman stepped in only when the previous head, her Labour colleague Chris Bryant, recused himself after ranting on social media: ‘The PM broke the law, repeatedly lied to Parliament and refused to correct the record.’ Bryant concluded Johnson was ‘not fit for office’

Still on the committee is Conservative MP for Newbury Laura Farris, an ally of Sunak’s who has opined that parties at No10 had a ‘corrosive effect on public trust’ and that the PM’s leadership was ‘untenable’.

Then there is the Scottish National Party’s Allan Dorans, who has approvingly retweeted claims on social media that the ‘charlatan’ former PM is guilty of a ‘litany of lies’ and should be ‘shown the door’. In all, seven MPs sit on the committee: four Conservative, two Labour and one SNP. All but two have voiced their distaste for ‘Partygate’ or for Boris himself.

Add to this the devastating analysis by Lord Pannick, and the whole investigation appears indefensible.

There is no logical alternative but to close it down before it wreaks further damage to the credibility of the Commons.

Let me be clear: I do not want to see Parliament stripped of its powers to investigate contempt and other abuses by MPs.

Then there is the Scottish National Party’s Allan Dorans, who has approvingly retweeted claims on social media that the ‘charlatan’ former PM is guilty of a ‘litany of lies’ and should be ‘shown the door’

However, we need urgent reform. It is time that we had a statute for ‘contempt’ of Parliament, with proper definitions, a clear legal framework laying down protections for defendants and the power for courts to intervene where necessary.

And one thing that must be absolutely clear is that even if lying to Parliament is contempt, inadvertently misleading the Commons is not. If the present case goes against Boris and he is found guilty of contempt, it will be bad for him – but worse for our democracy.

Will the Privileges Committee realise any of this? I fear not. And thus they will continue to erode the public’s trust in the very institutions they purport to defend.

Andrew Tettenborn is a writer and a professor of law at Swansea University.

Source: Read Full Article