8th December 2021
The Downing Street Christmas party story is a good example of an incident that can be looked at in a legal, a policy and a political way.
*
The Law
From a legal perspective, it may well be that the infamous party last year at 10 Downing Street was not a breach of the law – at least for the organisers.
The experienced criminal barrister and legal commentator Matthew Scott has provided a detailed legal analysis of the situation over at his blog.
For the reasons he gives it looks as if organising the party may not have been a criminal offence – as long as it took place in the non-residential part of the building.
Less clear – oddly – is the position of the party-goers, and the only person who has read and considered every single coronavirus regulation – the barrister Adam Wagner – avers that those who attended the party may still face the possibility of liability.
The organisers may not have been in breach but everyone who attended would have been – if it was a "permitted organised gathering" where there was mingling between households
— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) December 6, 2021
Yes, this is rather counter-intuitive – but the law here was and is a mess.
And when the law is a mess, such counter-intuitive situations will happen.
But as Wagner says elsewhere, there is legal unfairness as well as inconsistency:
I know I mentioned this before but this keeps bringing back the utter distress of my 7 student clients who got £10,000 fixed penalty notices for house parties. Families paying life changing £ they couldn't afford, regulators + student authorities disciplinary processes triggered
— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) December 7, 2021
So, although the metropolitan police are (rightly) considering whether to investigate the Downing Street party as a breach of the law, it looks as if any prosecutions or fines may be unlikely – unless there are admissions.
This is more by luck than judgement, as one suspects nobody in Downing Street knew or cared about the legal position at the time.
They would have partied anyway, as they see legal rules as being for other people.
*
Policy
Now we turn to the non-legal rules that applied at the time.
For even if organising the party was not (technically) illegal, it still may have been in breach of the guidance at the time.
And what was the policy at the time?
Helpfully, here is an official government tweet from the very day before the party, replying to a query:
Hi Mick, although there are exemptions for work purposes, you must not have a work Christmas lunch or party, where that is a primarily social activity and is not otherwise permitted by the rules in your tier. You can find more information here: https://t.co/OffEeTzYh3 Thanks
— GOV.UK (@GOVUK) December 17, 2020
That tweet in turn links to the guidance of the time.
That guidance expressly provided:
So, even if (unwittingly) the organisation of the party was not a breach of the criminal law at the time, there is no wiggle-room about it being a breach of the applicable guidance.
In essence: even if not a breach of the law, it was a breach of the rules.
But again, one suspects nobody in Downing Street knew or cared about the policy position at the time.
They would have partied anyway, as they see non-legal rules as also being for other people.
*
Politics
When there is a leak, other than when the disclosure is contemporaneous, its timing and content will usually tell you more about the enemies of the subject of the leak than anything else.
Leaks are often a matter of timing – and of perceived vulnerability.
And so somebody somewhere decided this was the right time to disclose to the news the video of the mock press conference.
EXCLUSIVE: Video obtained by ITV News shows Downing Street staff joking about a Christmas party on 18th December last year.
No 10 has spent the past week denying any rules were broken. This new evidence calls that into question. pic.twitter.com/nKYK0tG0dQ
— Paul Brand (@PaulBrandITV) December 7, 2021
The fuller video here should also be watched.
Given internal security at Downing Street, the disclosure of such material indicates that the prime minister has some well-placed and well-connected political enemies.
As to the content of the video, there is nothing wrong with such questions and answers being rehearsed – and there is nothing wrong with it being done with an appropriate sense of humour and with candour about not knowing the answers.
That is how such rehearsals are usually done.
What is telling and discomforting is the general levity not of the spokesperson trying to work out a line-to-take – but the levity of all the other political operatives involved.
It was a huge joke.
There was a realisation that laws and rules had been broken, but they were just to laugh about.
Bantz.
As it happens the mock session was not a rehearsal for an imminent press conference, but (presumably) one of a sequence of sessions in preparation for the the televised press conferences that were then envisaged as commencing the next month.
I'm told by one well-connected Tory that this specific mock press conference was decisive in ensuring they never actually happened https://t.co/tA3ENJQrLA
— George Parker (@GeorgeWParker) December 7, 2021
And so we have a press conference room, at huge expense, which was never to be used:
Amazing to think that Boris Johnson spent £2.6 million on this room for daily televised press briefings and the only clip we'll ever see from them is when his Press Secretary joked about when they all broke the law. pic.twitter.com/g0fdFMZd6y
— Adam Bienkov (@AdamBienkov) December 7, 2021
(And only yesterday this blog was bemoaning the proliferating use of United Kingdom flags for political broadcast purposes.)
There are two obvious broad political consequences of this situation.
First, the currency of official denials is now not so much devalued, but worthless:
Cover-ups and credibility: Johnson’s denials no longer carry much weight https://t.co/1oe1gU8gVV
— Rowena Mason (@rowenamason) December 7, 2021
And second, there will now be no perceived legitimacy whatsoever in the government direction and guidance on public health generally and coronavirus in particular.
Politics – in a democracy – is about words, authority, and power.
And this government could not have done more to compromise its political position.
*
Law, Policy and Politics combined
All this has happened at perhaps the worst moment – for the government and for the rest of us.
A new variant coronavirus may require the government to use law, policy and political leadership as means to address the new public health problem.
But the government – by this and other unforced errors – has undermined its ability to do this.
The Downing Street Christmas party story may be a good example of an incident that can be looked at in a legal, a policy and a political way.
But it also can be seen as a good example of everything the government should have avoided.
And the ultimate problem – that of a complete failure of political leadership – cannot be blamed on others:
I think we're a bit beyond the "good Tsar, naughty advisors" defence here lads. https://t.co/G5ddVDmIMW
— Dan Snow (@thehistoryguy) December 7, 2021
**
“Hello Nemesis? You say Hubris invited you? Go straight in and get some wine and cheese.”
******
This daily law and policy blog needs your help to continue for another year – for the benefit of you and other readers.
Each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.
This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.
If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – both for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
*****
You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
I think that there is a fourth dimension, simple humanity, and an awareness of (or lack thereof) and sensitivity to the situation of others. The enormous gap between the grieving of those who have lost loved ones without being able to see and comfort them and the government’s response to questions on this issue is what makes this different.
Indeed.
People who played by the rules last year, whose relatives, for example, died alone, unvisited, are hurting.
Bizarrely, the Shadow Chancellor’s Twitter account put out a video yesterday evening of Rachel Reeves at the Despatch Box, talking about, of all things at that moment, Government waste.
Merely reTweeting the ITV video scoop would have been enough with other Labour Twitter accounts joining the party.
Whilst it may be comforting for some (Starmerites) to think Team Starmer are capable of running a slick, on message media operation, but choose not to do so for fear of being associated with Blair and Mandelson, I am afraid that it may actually be that they are just bloody useless at it and unwilling to learn from past successful Labour methods of campaigning.
So many avoidable mistakes from the Opposition in such a narrow time frame reminds one of “Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action.” ”
John Major may have been temperamentally unsuited to the role of Prime Minister (and not quite as grey as we then thought), but he was and is no Boris Johnson.
Johnson’s character, his Falstaff without the roguish charm, would have been red meat for New Labour.
Johnson is a target rich environment and this blog, alone, provides plenty of ammunition to expend on it to good effect.
I am sure that legal sophistry will be deployed to “prove” the gathering was not illegal, but that is not what matters. I am sure I am one of hundreds of thousands if not millions who are sick of the absolute contempt in which we, the public, are held by this government. The newly released Rees-Mogg video encapsulates this contempt. Where for Starmer to begin at PMQs today: the fiasco at the FCDO where not only Raab but the Permanent Secretary were on holiday as the crisis unfolded (if Sir Philip Barton were any kind of gentleman or had any self-awareness he would resign immediately, having left twenty something recent graduates to try to manage on their own – and I can imagine the pressure that has been put on young brave Raphael Marshall over the last four months); the Christmas Party and the speech by the Leader of the House dissing any police investigation, the party held on a day when 692 people died of Covid; or the prioritisation of the evacuation of animals rather than people from Kabul (presumably suggested by Carrie, Johnson has his fingerprints all over it as the letter from his PPS attests). Sharmer is spoilt for choice. But we can be sure the PM will not answer a single question, nor will the lily-livered Speaker make him do so. I am incandescent at the sheer incompetence and corruption of this administration and our powerlessness to do anything about it.
well said
Sadly the opposition seems determioned to keep them in power rather than sit down and negotiate a pre and (in outline) post election deal. A Tory strategist quoted in the FT said: if the Opposition was to get its act together, it would be a game changer.
I despair.
Just out of curiosity, could there be other events where the organiser is getting away with it but the guests/visitor/attendees break the law? Or in other words, are there other laws which are as muddled as this?
Maybe some party in the countryside which turns into an illegal rave because of too many visitors showing up and doing illegal things?
As you point out, the very revelation that this party took place (and there was almost certainly another one, too) makes it much more difficult for the government to impose new lockdown measures if the new variant takes even greater hold than it has already. Whether deliberately or not, then, this plays into the hands of the anti-lockdown “libertarian” wing of Tory MPs. On the principle of cui bono?, one wonders who leaked the video and why. But whatever the case, I’m waiting for the scapegaots to be wheeled out in order to save Johnson’s skin.
The timing is interesting. I wondered why this story came out now, but, as this plays into the hands of the those who argue against lockdown at a time when a new variant of the virus is starting to take hold it does make me feel there is a deliberate purpose here (beyond basic mischief making).
The evidence gathered recently of the presence, if not the use, of definitely illegal drugs at the Palace of Westminster within feet, we are told, of both the offices there of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary provides the Opposition with an angle to exploit that links back to Johnson’s photo opportunity of Monday and his crack down on middle class drug abuse.
A case for getting one’s own house in order to encompass all the irregular behaviour that has surfaced this week.
As for this week’s revelations about the third Mrs Johnson, here is one I made some months ago. There may be a family of elephants in a room at Number Ten.
Uxorem Caesaris tam suspicione quam crimine carere oportet …
https://jodatu.wordpress.com/2021/07/25/boris-darling-im-just-off-to-kenya-to-drop-off-some-elephants-in-the-bush-do-you-want-me-to-get-anything-for-you-while-im-out/
If this story is reflected in the opinion polls it will be a Christmas present.
If it establishes a vocal opposition and also breaks the Tory party into its 3 or 4 elements (libertarian, traditionalist, populist, the rest) that will be an added blessing.
Finally if the elements of the press (today the Sun and Telegraph) are brought low that will make it a hat trick.
Of course all of the above could be yesterday’s news in a month’s time.
Good for the Reform party.
The ideal scenario at the next GE would be:
– a united opposition with single candidates in targeted swing constituencies
– a Tory party losing votes to Reform on its right flank. Tice has said there would be not candidates withdrawal (whether this is worth anything is another matter but one can hope. Reform has a direct interest to an opposition governement if it was to introduce PR)
Nemesis? Hubris? Boris just doesn’t have a Allegra to stand on any more!
Forgive me, forgive me, forgive me
For the PM at the despatch box to continue to affect not to know whether or not a party took place (10 days after the story first broke), so that he needs to commission an inquiry, stretches credulity well past the snapping point. But now that he’s lining up the No 10 underlyings to carry the can, we can no doubt expect further leaks of evidence to appear in the press in the next few days.
As is often the case, it’s not the crime but rather the attempted cover-up that brings such people down. I hope it happens soon, for the good of the country.
Yes indeed. I too noticed the repeated use of the weasel mantra “I have been assured” – on a par with “we do not recognise…” which DAG wrote about a few days ago. That and the use of Case the Cabinet Secretary (aka large brush for dipping into whitewash) to instigate an enquiry, thus establishing Johnson’s very guilty role in this squalid affair as an innocent, who will be shocked to learn of any wrongdoing. Note how the other two parties at Number 10, at one of which Johnson was undeniably present, are not to be investigated. As Starmer pointed out at PMQs, he takes us for fools. The only person being fooled is himself.
Interestingly Cummings referred twice to parties – one on the day of his departure 13 November- held in the private Downing Street flat, some attended, he says, by “political hacks”.
It is also confirmed by multiple source that Johnson attended a leaving party – he gave the speech- for a Downing Stree staffer who was previously part of Cumming’s team on 27 November with drinks, etc.
yet, both Starmer’s attacks – which is strange, does he want Johnson to stay, wounded and discredited rather than being replaced?- and the Case investigation are focused on the 22/12 party which Johnson did not attend (reportedly)
A few members of staff will be sacked. They will be pressured into signing NDAs. End of story.
But it will leave permanent damage.
So Johnson’s get out of jail free card is to accuse the opposition of “playing politics” since March 2020? Starmer has taken considerable stick for supporting most of the government’s attempts to deal with the pandemic. But heaven forfend that any politicians in the House of Commons should make any comments actually motivated by politics.
This is superb. I think you may have surpassed yourself with the best commentary I’ve seen on this.
After Mr Wishart on 4 November [how long ago that seems], today we had Mr Blackford. What does it say about the state of English politics when those best able and most prepared to “speak for England” are the SNP?
To say it with a bit of cynicism, power wears out those that don’t have it. Johnson and his sycophants have very thick skins.
About the animals being favoured for evacuation from Afghanistan over people. Downing Street say that the PPS wrote in her capacity as an MP and not as a PPS. It should be relatively easy for an enterprising journalist to get hold of a few letters to constituents to ask how she normally signs off letters. If when writing to Constituents (which Pen Farthing wasn’t), she only signs as an MP and doesn’t mention her other role, it would be pretty clear evidence that the PM’s fingerprints were all over this decision.
A woman has now been filmed having close to a nervous breakdown in public after having worked with Johnson who had earlier in the day effectively thrown her under the proverbial bus in Parliament.
Sitting next to him as he did so was the Chancellor who said and did nothing notwithstanding the woman in question is the wife of his best man at his wedding. He could have stayed away and disclosed the reason but chose not to do so.
This whole incident is shameful and reflects upon all British citizens . This is now more important than whether or not any gathering illegal or otherwise took place.