Johnson’s lawyers have ‘systemic misunderstanding’ of parliamentary process, MPs say

Lawyers hired by Boris Johnson to rubbish the Commons Partygate inquiry have a systemic misunderstanding of the parliamentary process and used misplaced analogies, according to a group of senior MPs.

In a fightback campaign to avoid the investigation of the former prime minister being derailed, the privileges committee drew up a dossier to refute criticism about its work.

The MPs said personal attacks levied against them by Johnson s allies could constitute contempt of parliament, and that the unprecedented and groundless criticism could constitute contempt of parliament.

The taxpayer argued that the committee was using a flawed approach and unfair procedures despite legal advice from David Pannick and Jason Pobjoy commissioned in the dying days of Johnson's administration.

The committee's rebuttal dossier was due to be published earlier this month but was delayed after the death of the Queen and wrangling over who should fill a vacant spot among its seven members.

The special report said Lord Pannick and Pobjoy's advice was based on a systemic misunderstanding of the parliamentary process and misplaced analogies with the criminal law. It says that MPs needed to show Johnson's misleading of parliament was intentional was wrong, as it was implicit in the motion that set up the inquiry and the parliamentary rulebook Erskine May.

It does not agree with the claim that punishing politicians who mislead parliament would have a chilling effect, as ministerial mistakes in the Commons are not a problem if corrected quickly If we find that the house has been misled, one question that the committee will consider is how quickly and sincerely Johnson tried to correct the record, it says.

In December 2021, Johnson told MPs that all guidance was fully followed in No 10 six months before Scotland Yard issued more than 100 fines, including to the then prime minister, for law-breaking Covid parties.

Pannick and Pobjoy said it was unfair that the identities of anonymous whistleblowers who give evidence may not be revealed to Johnson.

The committee admits that anonymous witnesses with credible evidence can raise issues in relation to fairness, but it also says that this would need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis and only if it was satisfied that the evidence was relevant and credible. If it does, we will publish proposals for a fair process and Mr Johnson will be invited to comment, the MPs add.

Johnson wrote to the privileges committee four days before stepping down as prime minister, saying that Lord Pannick's words speak for itself and saying: Please consider this a formal representation on my behalf. Last week, the Guardian revealed that the well-respected veteran Conservative MP Charles Walker was being lined up to take the last of four Tory seats on the seven-member committee.