I am confident that the judgement I have reached will please neither Boris’s supporters nor his detractors
That shameful behaviour took place in Downing Street during lockdown, is not in doubt. Boris has acknowledged this and apologised for it. Many believe that those at the helm of such a dysfunctional ship should have taken responsibility and resigned. I have some sympathy with that view. Nevertheless, this was not the issue that was before the Committee of Privilege and the Commons.
I do not impugn the integrity of the Committee, though I believe it was unwise to have allowed itself to be chaired by someone who had been so critical of Boris. Nevertheless, I do not question her integrity.
The procedure adopted by the committee and the Commons was the right one: only elected members of Parliament should determine whether another elected member be suspended or expelled.
I simply disagree with the Committee’s conclusions, as I am entitled to do.
Parliament is the highest court in the land and when it exercises its judicial functions this should be reflected in its proceedings. Unlike the measured and forensic method of the Committee, the debate in the Commons was highly charged and deeply political.
I have not served on a Jury but I have been a member of the board on half a dozen courts marshall where the procedure is, in essence, the same.
I was among sternest critics of the Government during the period in question when Boris was Prime Minister.
Had Boris come before my court I might have found him guilty of a number of offences had he been charged with them. Nevertheless, on the basis of the evidence for the crime with which he was charged, I would have had no alternative but to acquit.
I believe that, notwithstanding the weight of evidence cited by the Committee, it failed to identify and sustain the mens rea – the guilty intent.
The essence of the case was that the rules required that workplace gatherings, to be lawful, had to be essential. The PM authorised such gatherings for the purpose of thanking staff for their contribution and to sustain their morale. These purposes were not essential, and therefore the gatherings were unlawful. So, by repeatedly stating that rules were not broken Boris was Lying.
I disagree. However flawed the PM’s judgement may have been in reaching his decision about the essential nature of gatherings, it was his decision to make. Having made that judgement, he was entitled to believe that they fell within the rules. He may have wrong in his judgement but that is no basis on which to assert that he was lying.
In addition to the binary choice, guilty or not guilty, there is an additional verdict that is available to courts in Scotland which might have been appropriate in this case: ‘not proven’.