Downing Street has released a legal opinion from eminent lawyer Lord Pannick, which found that an inquiry into whether Boris Johnson misled parliament is being conducted by an “unfair procedure” which would be ruled “unlawful” by courts.
The opinion was commissioned by the Cabinet Office after MPs voted for an inquiry into whether Johnson’s denials of lockdown-breaching parties at No 10 amounted to a contempt of parliament.
Lord Pannick, who has previously appeared against the government, found that it was “wrong in principle” for the committee, chaired by Labour’s Harriet Harman, to pass judgement not only on whether the PM “knowingly misled” parliament, but also on whether he simply “misled” it.
Because of parliamentary privilege, the committee’s decisions cannot be challenged in court.
But Lord Pannick said: “In our opinion, the committee is proposing to adopt an approach to the substantive issues which is wrong in principle in important respects, and the committee is also proposing to adopt an unfair procedure.
“But for parliamentary privilege, a court hearing a judicial review brought by Mr Johnson would in our view declare the approach taken by the committee to be unlawful.”
The 22-page document argued that a finding of contempt would require proof that the PM misled parliament intentionally.
And it said that it was “unfair” that the identities of witnesses might be withheld from Mr Johnson and that he might be denied the opportunity to cross-examine them.
The committee has said it will follow the interpretation of senior Commons official Eve Samson, Clerk of the Journals, who said that intention was “not relevant” to making a decision on whether a contempt has been committed.
But Lord Pannick insisted that an inaccurate statement by a minister “is only a contempt if the minister knew that the statement was false and intended to deceive the House”. There was “no basis for the novel approach which the committee has adopted”, he said.
He also said that the committee’s decision to allow witnesses to give evidence anonymously was flawed.
The committee has said this is necessary because some of those with information may be unwilling to come forward if their identities are revealed.
But Lord Pannick said: “That is not sufficient to allow for anonymity in a criminal trial. And that is because it is unfair to the defendant. It is impossible to understand why such unfairness should be tolerated in the present context.”
Labour shadow cabinet minister Thangam Debbonaire accused the government of “playhing fast and loose” with the rules in an attempt to save Mr Johnson from a humiliating finding which could lead to him being suspended from the Commons and even forced to face a recall petition.
“The House of Commons debated this fully on 21 April,” she said. “It was a unanimous request. Nobody voted against it.
“This government knew what the rules were then. They know what the rules are now.
“It just feels a lot like, yet again, there’s people in this current – I’m afraid to say future – Tory government playing fast and loose with these rules and with standards.”
Ms Debbonaire said it was incumbent on Mr Johnson not only to avoid knowingly misleading parliament, but also to correct inaccurate statements at the earliest possible opportunity after he realised they were misleading.
Liberal Democrat cabinet spokesperson Christine Jardine demanded to know how much taxpayer money had been spent on obtaining the advice.
“People are tired of these expensive attempts by this government to manufacture ways for Boris Johnson to wriggle out of any consequences of his actions,” said Ms Jardine.
“The government must fess up to the cost of this legal advice and stop expecting the taxpayers to pick up the tab for Conservative sleaze. The next prime minister must allow this inquiry to continue completely untouched by the Conservative chumocracy.”
