26th May 2022
Let us start with one stark fact that demands explanation.
That fact is that the current Prime Minister received only one fixed-penalty notice in respect of the many gatherings at Downing Street, while others present received many more.
One response to this striking fact is to posit that there must have been a stitch-up or some other conspiracy – and nothing in what follows in this post denies that possibility.
This blog, however, is not a conspiracy blog, but a place for law and policy analysis and commentary.
And on that basis, let us look to see if there can be another explanation.
*
Let us now go to what the current Prime Minister said in the House of Commons yesterday, in his pre-prepared statement.
One passage was especially interesting:
“The exemption under which those staff were present in Downing Street includes circumstances where officials and advisers were leaving the Government, and it was appropriate to recognise them and to thank them for the work that they have done. [Interruption.]
“Let me come to that, Mr Speaker. I briefly attended such gatherings to thank them for their service—which I believe is one of the essential duties of leadership, and is particularly important when people need to feel that their contributions have been appreciated—and to keep morale as high as possible. [Interruption.]
“I am trying to explain the reasons why I was there, Mr Speaker.”
*
This passage seemed to be very carefully put together – and (as a former government lawyer) I gained the impression that it owed far more to legal advice than to any genuine articulation of Boris Johnson’s state(s)-of-mind.
Johnson was present, he claims, because he was fulfilling a management function – an ‘essential dut[y] of leadership’.
He was, he says, thanking staff for their service, appreciating people for their contribution, and keeping morale as high as possible.
*
If you read the last sentence again, you will see it says much the same thing in three different ways.
This is a trick many lawyers know and use to make it look like an obligation has been fulfilled.
It takes the form of [duty A] was fulfilled because of [x, y and z], where [x, y and z] are synonyms or near-synonyms.
*
The impression I had on listening to this passage of Johnson’s statement was that some lawyers had been presented with the unhappy facts of the Prime Minister attending leaving parties and giving toasts, with glass in hand.
How does one possibly convert that situation into something that brings it within the legal exemption of being part of a gathering that was reasonably necessary for work?
After all, a leaving party is not reasonably necessary for work, and toasts are not reasonably necessary for work.
But if you flip the description of what happened from parties and toasts to performing an ‘essential dut[y] of leadership’ by synonym, near-synonym, and near-synonym – ahem, thanking staff for their service, appreciating people for their contribution, and keeping morale as high as possible – then, there you have it, a reasonable excuse.
That excuse may not cover others present at the same gathering – but it would cover the one providing ‘essential leadership’.
And it would not cover the one gathering where that excuse – I mean, explanation – would and could not apply – the birthday gathering.
That is why, I aver, he got a penalty for that indoor gathering but not the other parties.
My suspicion – which may or may not be well-founded – is that this is the very reason why someone is quoted as saying that the Prime Minister was assured that he would only get one penalty.
(Of course, this may be wrong and it may be that there were Metropolitan Police leaks or undue contacts between the Prime Minister’s office and Scotland Yard – but my theory has the merit of not needing any such conspiracy.)
*
Yesterday I set out this theory in a brief Twitter reply – which was not sufficiently clear – and I was told that I was wrong – that leaving parties and toasts were not and should not be reasonably necessary for work.
But I agree with those points.
My suggestion is not that leaving parties and toasts were, by themselves, reasonably necessary.
It is instead that providing ‘essential leadership’ is reasonably necessary – and this can be distinct from how that leadership manifested itself in particular circumstances.
And synonym, near-synonym, and near-synonym – thanking staff for their service, appreciating people for their contribution, and keeping morale as high as possible – may all be supposed examples of such ‘essential leadership’.
Of course, there were many other ways a senior manager could have performed these ‘essential’ tasks – by Zoom calls, or thank-you notes, and so on.
And indeed, during the lockdown, this is what other senior managers did so as to provide their (genuinely) essential leadership.
If your view is that the current Prime Minister could have performed his role without giving toasts at leaving parties, no sensible person will disagree.
But from a legal perspective, if that was his reason for being at a gathering – and if it is accepted that thanking staff for their service, appreciating people for their contribution, and keeping morale as high as possible can all be elements of a leadership function – then you can now see how the Prime Minister has managed to take the benefit of the exemption.
*
The theory set out above has the merit of explaining the striking fact stated at the head of this post: that the current Prime Minister received only one fixed-penalty notice in respect of the many gatherings at Downing Street, while others present at those gatherings received many more.
And if this theory is sound then it shows the irony – hypocrisy – of Johnson’s many attacks on ‘activist’ lawyers for others while taking the benefit of legal advice for himself.
It is also shows the unfairness of the more senior people in ‘Partygate’ getting lawyered-up when more junior figures were not able to do so, and so were penalised instead.
If Johnson should be toasting anyone, then it should be the lawyers that gave him a way of avoiding legal liability in this awkward situation.
But, no doubt, he will ‘move on’ – and start attacking lawyers again.
**
Please support this independent law and policy blog so that it can continue – do not assume it can continue without your help.
For more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
You can also become an email subscriber.
***
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 and comments will not be published if irksome.
For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.
If Johnson could only provide essential leadership by doing it in person, does that not require those being led to be there also? And therefore presumably not liable for fines?
Although, possibly answering my own question, I suppose it only requires them to be there for the bit when they are being led, and they could be fined for all the rest!!!
That I think is a good point, as would be the similar one I thought of, which is that modern theories of leadership don’t think of leadership as necessarily coming from the top down. However, that is all irrelevant if only senior figures were in a position to avail themselves of a high standard of legal advice.
First rate, David!
I’d have thought that if that exemption applies to the leader it also applies to the led, whose attendance could also be seen as contributing to confidence in the organisation and the leader as well as bolstering morale.
But they didn’t all have the benefit of an expensive lawyer to argue that case for them.
There is a key point here.
In order to dispense leadership, a team is required to be present to receive it. If this lawyerly blather is to be believed, then the team must have been gathered at the leader’s behest, otherwise there would be no leadership to dispense. So why were they fined for following orders?
Thank you that is helpful. Of course we don’t know the reasons why he was not fined and given the high profile nature of the case – it would have been helpful if the Met had provided some written context to explain its decision-making to a baffled public.
If this was the reason (sounds plausible) then I would infer that the police where willing to grasp any legal defence that was offered. Even one that stretches credulity and was undermined by witness statements suggesting that Johnson lingered at the gatherings as they became purely ‘social’.
I also wonder why he couldn’t stretch this excuse to the birthday gathering. By the same logic any gathering to ‘improve morale’ would be acceptable?
I actually think the Met would have been better not investigating at all. The scandal is really political and constitutional in its nature.
Still, the wider point is that politically Johnson will surely lose the next election (I predict badly) and is a key Labour asset.
“I also wonder why he couldn’t stretch this excuse to the birthday gathering. By the same logic any gathering to ‘improve morale’ would be acceptable?”
Because by definition, he couldn’t argue that he played a leadership role in organising an event which was a surprise party for himself!
However, it might explain why Simon Case didn’t receive a fine for attending that same event. Perhaps he argued that he had performed that ‘leadership’/morale-boosting role for the birthday party event?
Also, Johnson’s wife and interior decorator were there and no way could their presence be justified as for a work purpose! But still difficult to work out how Case escaped when Sunak received a FPN.
If the police were willing to grasp at any legal defence, they would have applied the Crown Estate exemption to everyone.
Excellent POST! Aside from the unarguable logical narrative, I enjoyed the repeated reference to the “current Prime Minister” (presumably meaning “at time of writing” – although with the steady trickle of letters being sent to Graham Brady today, perhaps you should be time-stamping your posts as well as dating them, to ensure that remains clear!)
If the ‘gathering’ was not reasonably necessary (and the fines indicate that was the determination by the Met) and should not have taken place,` then surely the essential leadership wasn’t to take part but to stop it or prevent it from taking place at all?
That is the obvious counterpoint.
But it was never tested since the police made the decision themselves without reference to any arbitrator.
I’m glad you said this as it was just what I was going to raise.
An analogy of this would be in my role as a junior coach at a cricket club.
If a coaching session were to go ahead, it would (under ECB rules) require a DBS-checked supervising adult with suitable qualifications.
Therefore, my justification to be present is that I needed to be there to reasonably fulfil this requirement.
The logic following DAG’s suggestion, therefore, is if my club arranged an unlawful training session during lockdown, I would not be fined as I am providing a reasonably necessary supervision function. But others attending would be fined as they are attending an unlawful event.
I’m not quite sure I can accept that logic. If the event is unnecessary, then the supervision (or, in Johnson’s case, the leadership) is surely also unnecessary.
But DAG may well be right in concluding that the Met found this a useful way out of tackling the PM.
Yes, you could almost imagine the Met’s relief when an expensive lawyer offed them a vaguely plausible way of fining the people at the party but not tarring Johnson with the same brush.
Of course, it’s nonsense – but (assuming David’s explanation is corrent) is an example of the interests of the Met and Johnson align.
It however does not explain why he did not in his leadership position put an end to the clearly illegal parties he was clearly aware of. This is sufficient in my mind to be a resigning matter regardless of any of the other issues he should’ve resigned over.
Except that it requires honesty, integrity, transparency … where’s a good ministerial code when you need one?
Perhaps the simpler explanation for Johnson not getting fined for these events is that he didn’t return the questionnaires and the Met didn’t press him to do so.
I assume this was ‘not done’ with lawyers advice, and it appears to have worked for Johnson.
What legal power might the police have to compel a person to fill in a questionnaire about their allegedly criminal actions which may lead to coercive consequences – cautions or fines or prosecution or whatever – and what might happen if a person refused to comply?
Is this is an option that is commonly adopted, rather than say interviewing witnesses and suspects? Can someone instruct their lawyer to write or vet their responses, like they might with a witness statement in a civil trial? Is this in effect a prepared statement?
I would suggest it is unwise for anyone to answer such a questionnaire without seeking legal advice, in the same way that it might be unwise to allow the police to conduct an interview without your lawyer present. I wonder what if any legal support was offered to the staff at Number 10.
Interesting post. Please may I ask a question re: “It takes the form of [duty A] was fulfilled because of [x, y and z], where [x, y and z] are synonyms or near-synonyms.”
— is there a reason for the (near) tautology / three items; do there need to be three / is this a standard format, or is this just how this particular response presented?
Good question
It is because lawyers are trained to ‘particularise’ examples of obligations being either fulfilled or breached.
Damn, and I thought this was an example of a tricolon, and so evidence of those much-vaunted Oxford Union debating skills and classical education that our PM purports to have.
Thank you!
The word ‘necessary’ is strained, when there were reasonable alternatives, even if they were less effective or desirable
There is a test of “reasonable necessity” in various bits of English legislation, court procedure, and legal contracts.
“Necessary” sets a high objective bar, but “reasonable” appears to be softening it somewhat. So what is “reasonable”?
Reasonableness is inherently an objective test: what would the reasonable person, the “man on the Clapham omnibus”, do or think. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus and particularly the quote from Lord Reed, and his list of some more hypothetical persons with a season ticket on that bus, including the right-thinking member of society, the officious bystander, and the fair-minded and informed observer).
(In English law, that is: US criminal law distinguishes objective and subjective standards of reasonableness, depending on what if any of the characteristics of the actual person in question are bestowed on the reasonable person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_and_objective_standard_of_reasonableness )
But whether or not something is “reasonable” is often in the eye of the beholder. In this context, in practice it often blurs the hard line between whether something is strictly necessary or not, and poses the question whether something could reasonably be regarded as necessary or not (by whom, you ask? the hypothetical ordinary and reasonable person, personified by the High Court judge).
For some light relief, the Finance Act 2013 includes a general anti abuse rule with a “double reasonableness” test: tax arrangements are defined as “abusive” if they are arrangements “the entering into or carrying out of which cannot reasonably be regarded as a reasonable course of action…”
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/29/part/5/enacted
Answers on a postcard what that actually means.
The Leaving and Thank you gatherings on 27/11 and 10/12 did not receive any FPNs. Common factor is that both were kept short with people leaving within an hour. Does this not suggest time was also a factor in the Met’s decision making? This would suggest PM spending 30 mins giving a speech and saying Thank you and then leaving was deemed legal, but staff continuing to drink and socialise for several hours afterwards was legally unreasonable and clearly failed the reasonably necessary for work purposes test.
It is notable that he says he “*believes* it is one of the essential duties of leadership”. Two queries arise in my mind, neither of which will change the reasoning above but would be of interest:
– what are the other essential duties of leadership that Mr Johnson professes to believe in?
– how is he not aiding and abetting the breaking of the law by the junior staff who were present and who were fined?
thanks as ever
(the first query is of course a rhetorical one)
Apart from what he appears to believe is the supreme duty of leadership, which is to preserve the leader’s job at pretty much any cost.
Some obvious other essential characteristics of leadership:
– foresight
– turning up to meetings (I think the missing of the 5 COBRA meetings is an even bigger scandal)
– honesty in general – if he had really believed these meetings were essential, why did he not make the point before? Why did he not tell managers all over the country – work at home but gather everyone in if someone is leaving?
There must be many more that could be added but this is my five minutes worth.
Can I add ‘being prepared’ to this list? Being prepared in the sense of having read the relevant briefing papers?
PS Mr Green – all your posts are interesting and informative but this one is just brilliant. Thank you.
Whilst not being a lawyer – my years of working in public sector roles involving my area, finance, alongside local government lawyers, provides me with some clarity over such challenging matters. Looking at the legislation which was in place at the time of several events (around Nov 2020) my reading of The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020, Section 11 which deals with “Exceptions in relation to gatherings” suggests to me, at least, that it was the gathering itself that needed to come within the boundary of exceptions. So even if Johnson was advised that his attending was for some leadership role that’s surely not the point brought out in the regulations? If others were fined – then the police (and presumably their advisers) concluded that the event itself did not fall within the exceptions. So turning up – even for a leadership function – couldn’t make the event an exception?
Good point. An exemption ‘reasonably necessary’ for work purposes is a high bar to clear. ‘Reasonably’ does not strengthen or weaken the exemption. Leaving is not a work purpose.
Au contraire – I would contend that “reasonably necessary” is a substantially lower bar to cross than “necessary” (let alone “essential”).
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”
I agree, but my point is that leaving is not a work activity. Anyway there will be many more fascinating posts to come I’m sure.
Well, if you accept the premise that it is an essential part of a leadership role to thank people for their work, to maintain morale (principally for the benefit of those who are staying rather than for those who are leaving) then I can see an argument that a brief leaving event could be “reasonably necessary for work purposes”. That is to say, it is possible to advance that argument without feeling too embarrassed about it. But I think most ordinary people on the Clapham omnibus would come to a conclusion that it is not “reasonably necessary” for people to gather in person and imbibe alcoholic beverages together to achieve that result. There are plenty of alternatives that do not involve a gathering.
It’s interesting that the “reasonable”-ness test is being applied to what the prime minister believes is reasonable, rather than to what ‘someone’ might believe is reasonable. My question is whether the state of the PMs mind is relevant at all?
The second part of the exemption is necessary – not just reasonable. As you say, other methods of thanking staff existed.
(I would also argue that no reasonable person that has repeatedly told a whole country to stay at home, could reasonably claim to believe that if alternatives such as zoom were available that he didn’t think they were more appropriate)
It’s also remarkable that that defence is available to the PM but not, for example, to other people in leadership positions – saw a tweet referencing a shop owner fined by the Met for allowing a leaving party to happen.
Excellent post. What could explain the fact that Simon Case received no FPNs?
I would like to see the internal guidance issued in No.10 to ensure Covid compliance and to learn how it was enforced.
Entirely concur. It’s a ‘Brexit means Brexit’ tautology, reinforced by the very expression ‘essential duty’ (what other kind of ‘duty’ is there?) And the ‘case’ doesn’t even have to be conclusive — just enough to satisfy the Met criterion for retrospective investigation: ‘Where there was little ambiguity around the absence of any reasonable defence’. Not for them to decide whether the ‘duty’ performed was in fact an ‘essential duty’. Their decision not to fine therefore only means that they thought that there was enough ambiguity around the reasonableness of a defence concocted by the PM’s lawyers not to proceed, especially when the foreseeable consequence might have been either an appeal or letters to the 1922 Committee possibly leading to the removal of a sitting PM. And then, of course, the verdict attributed by the defendant to the police’s failure to fine him becomes *evidence* of his innocence. It was a political mistake to allow the police to be elected as final legal arbiters of his conduct. DPP outwitted by those ‘righty lawyers’ who help the metropolitan elite like Johnson to escape the law!
A great post, David – Thank you.
And perhaps Keir Starmer should also be thanking you, and Mr. Johnson’s lawyers, because this exact same defence could be applied to the Durham event. [Though I suspect there are other, sounder defences]
Listening to Starmer and others commenting on the Durham event, I get the impression that they were already going down precisely that line (though in their case it might indeed be a reasonable defence, after all, I don’t think not eating or drinking was required in order for a gathering to be necessary for work).
Even if the MET accepted that delivering a toast was displaying a leadership function, the pictures show at least 7 bottles of wine, gin etc on the table when Johnson was there.
How many people were there? – the photos show about 6
What sort of toast did Johnson think he was attending?
As other’s have suggested – if his leadership required him to attend such events then as leader did he not have the responsibility for the gathering itself to be legal? From the descriptions we have heard of such gathering, while he was present there were staff members sitting on other’s laps; there was food and drink which was not essential for raising morale; there was no social distancing.
When as leader of the country he attended hospitals to thank NHS staff and raise their morale there was no need for such partying so, why was it that he thought it acceptable for staff who worked directly under his leadership should be behaving differently?
As leader did he not permit his staff to break the law and therefore himself be complicit in the lawbreaking and liable to penalty?
The exemption from the prohibition on gatherings was about the purpose of the meeting, not the knowledge or motivation or identity of the persons present. Was each gathering reasonably necessary for work purposes?
Reliance on “essential duties of leadership” is ingenious, but does this analysis apply to anyone else in a leadership position, outside of Number 10? And does it only apply while the prime minister is physically present, and not before he arrives, or after he goes upstairs to his flat?
The conclusion appears to be that any gathering attended by the prime minister was a work meeting. He (and perhaps only he) is fulfilling his essential duties of leadership at every waking moment. Except when he let other people sing happy birthday and give him a cake.
So he escapes a fine, because he is able to create sufficient doubt over whether his presence renders a gathering reasonably necessary for work purposes. But somehow other people attending the same meetings – meetings which may arguably be reasonably necessary while the prime minister was present, to perform his essential duty of leadership – are fined for continuing the gathering after he leaves.
Before 1 June 2020, gatherings were prohibited, except where the gathering was “essential for work purposes”. We are expected to believe that all of the people there – including the prime minister’s wife and child – were at one or more “essential” work meetings, with wine and cheese.
And is there a similar analysis explain why the Cabinet Secretary avoided being fined for the birthday meeting? He attended the same meeting: he was in the room while it happened. But did he manage to attend a gathering that was “reasonably necessary for work purposes”, while everyone else at the same meeting did not?
This could be due to the way the law is adjudicated but it seems perverse.
The regulations talk about the necessity of the gathering, not of the necessity of individuals attending. If it is reasonably necessary for one person, it is reasonably necessary for all.
If Johnson escaped a FPN for attending events that others received FPNs for, then the police must have concluded that a single event could be both reasonably necessary and not reasonably necessary. A bit of a Shrodinger’s party.
Another thing is that the police stated that they did not investigate Johnson for a number of events which it is known he was present at. If that is the case then the police would surely not even have got so far as to ask him for a lawyered response.
This gives great insight into how his lawyers might have saved him further fines.
However, given that Simon Case appears to have managed to avoid a fine for the Birthday Party, it seems that “reasons” might have been found.
I wonder if this might have been a choice on behalf of the PM.
If he had received no fines, the outcry might have been louder given the evidence.
Being fined for the least bad gathering allowed headlines from media supporters of “Is that it?” and similar.
Perhaps more importantly it also increased the exposure of his biggest rival (Sunak) to jeopardy, effectively tying his fate to that of Johnson.
Getting rid of Johnson might have been easier if the Tories felt they had a good alternative. How would they have replaced him with Sunak when he was at and indeed fined for the exact same gathering.
I can well see that the Met might have been happy to be persuaded that this was a credible “defence” for the PM individually, in the vexed circumstances of a high profile, retrospective investigation, which they had initially been very reluctant to undertake.
As far as I can remember, however, the regulations only concerned themselves with the lawfulness of “gatherings”. I’d be surprised if the draftsmen had ever intended that an individual might be capable of being lawfully present at an otherwise unlawful gathering (I appreciate that what the draftsmen intended is not a definitive argument), or that a court would accept the argument, bearing in mind, among other things, the purpose of the lockdown regulations (in effect, to minimise the spread of a potentially lethal and highly transmissible virus). As you say, the PM’s claimed justifications could have been discharged by a Zoom “broadcast”, etc.
I suppose it would also have made enforcement, at the time, far more problematic, if the police had had to concern themselves with individual arguments, rather than simply reaching a conclusion about whether a collective group of people had a reasonable excuse for being gathered together, by virtue of it being reasonably necessary for the purposes of work (or whatever), or not.
It doesn’t feel just if the most senior person can avoid sanction for his presence, when others get fined. In the cases we’re concerned with here, the PM should have been breaking the gatherings up and sending people on their way, not raising a glass and joining in.
Are you not familiar with the expression, “Deputy-heads must roll!” ?
It’s ironic his excuse is fulfilling his leadership role when his very lack of leadership created the lax and permissive law breaking culture in his press office.
He seems to accept responsibility only for those events he was present at. That’s far too restrictive. Like saying the Captain of a ship is only responsible when he is on the bridge. Johnson is responsible for the operation of No.10. While not directly running it he should be providing leadership and direction for those doing so. He must have been aware what was going on. If he wasn’t aware then that’s an even worse failure.
Surely he cannot get away with that failure? He created and encouraged the culture. Then there’s the lying to Parliament. He said there were no parties and that all rules were followed. There were and they weren’t.
Your challenge is entirely valid.
The thing is, the justifications (OK, let’s just use “excuses” as that’s what we’re discussing) given were for the “essential duties of leadership”…
But here’s the thing… I have a Manager in New York and staff all round the world… I do not need to be physically present in their office to be their manager and I do not need to be physically present to perform leadership duties.
It would have been entirely possible, were this lame, weasel-worded liability of an excuse to have any merit, for the PM to offer his appreciation via a Zoom call. He did not need to be physically present.
It is a shame that the PM wasn’t asked that question…
If a “leader” cannot manage their own office, what chance of them leading a country effectively?
Um, zero?
What this really shows is how badly the Civil Service unions let down their members. The junior staff could and should have been provided with high quality legal advice by the firms on retainer with the unions, and also avoided FPNs. If I were one of the staff I would be demanding a refund of my subs.
Some “leadership”. In this case the PM demonstrates his leadership skills by getting himself out of jail whilst throwing those he was purporting to lead under the bus. There must be some very, very angry junior civil servants in Number 10. That is if they haven’t all been “moved on” after they have paid their multiple fines. Angry enough to share photos perhaps.
“very, very angry junior civil servants in Number 10…”
Where do you think the pictures are coming from?
Intriguing article.
For a leaving do, however, when the purpose relates to praising and thanking someone who will no longer be working the following day, how can it be ‘essential’ to maintain that person’s morale and motivation?
I retired in February, having worked for the same company for over 20 years.
We have yet to have my retirement party; this is a decision made jointly between me and my former boss (but mainly from me), that even now I didn’t consider the circumstances merited the risk.
Instead, we have been waiting for some predictably good weather, and will hold an outside BBQ for staff who want to come and say goodbye. So either June or July, probably, although with people’s calendars to contend with, possibly August.
I may well have this wrong, but… My limited understanding is:-
1. The Prime Minister received a fine.
2. Time passed while more fines were issued.
3. No public indication was given that the PM received one or more additional fines.
4. The Met made a statement to the effect that they had concluded their investigation and determined that the PM would not receive *any more fines*.
I appreciate that the following question is formed of weasel words and asks us to consider the Met being intentionally duplicitous, but what if the Met issued the PM with fines between the first public issuance and their subsequent “no more fines” statement – but didn’t tell anyone???
As I understand it, there has been no “official tally” given.
For example, what if one of the events took place outside normal working hours and the individual in question went to the Met and said, “Ah, but, I did attend that event and I am willing to accept a fine for my participation, but I attended that fine as a private individual, not as the PM.” What then?
I ask because Johnson and Sunak alone, of all the official ministers, MPs, civil servants and SpAds who may have been present, actually have their principle place of residence at the same location.
Therefore, depending entirely on how they presented themselves to HM Constabulary in the context of the event, it is *entirely possible* that they received more than one fine… just in a different capacity.
Or am I being especially paranoid today?
If this is the scenario that was used, and it has some appeal, then I think the MET should have issued a whole raft of (or even just one sample of) FPNs to Johnson and encouraged him to appeal. Then we could have all seen the colour of his argument.
Further. Who paid the lawyer, if there was one. ? Should not have been HMG, methinks, since the PM was being accused in his personal capacity.?
What do you think?
I follow your argument. And it might well have force. But isn’t the question not whether there was an an arguable case for the exemption to apply but whether there was a reasonable case that a conviction would have resulted had the individual disputed the FPN? Nobody would ever be convicted of anything if the prosecution always took the view that a possible defence would inevitably prevail.
If Dominic Cummings is to be believed (that’s a risky proposition to begin an argument with, admittedly!), the Prime Minister was such a blundering liability that the Spads behind the scenes tried their best to keep him away from serious & important functions such as COBRA meetings. Raising toasts at leaving do’s was perhaps one of the few tasks that those pulling the strings behind the scenes could entrust him with.
So maybe that’s the reason why Johnson considered thanking staff, ‘appreciating’ people and ‘raising morale’ to comprise such an essential part of his leadership role.
Like you, I’m not sure how much faith can be placed in the utterances of one Mr. Cummings when contrasted with one Mr. Johnson.
On the other hand, the PM gives me the impression that he thinks that this is all just a special round of “Have I Got News For You”, that Sir Kier Starmer is somehow standing in for Ian Hislop (as the opposing Team Captain) and that the name of the game is to get as many laughs as possible.
At least, that would explain quite a bit.
It’s not so much that he thinks this is all an episode of HIGNFY, it’s that he doesn’t care that it’s not.
Not one of these posts has questioned the process: how was it that both police forces – the Met and Durham – said correctly they did not issue FPNs retrospectively; and then caved in to political and media pressure when Durham did not so do for Cummings. In the process which has been completed, that of the Met, the FPNs were issued through the post, up to two years afterwards, when we had been given to understand this could not be done after six months. FPNs are normally issued on the spot, at the time, to save administration and expense. A huge expense has been incurred here. What is the justification in law? Political and media pressure won’t do.
His essential leadership role was to provide a physically and psychologically safe workplace and ensure adherence to the law.
My question is after what time did the gathering become illegal?
David – a request…
Leaning in to the “and Policy” part of your blog, I wondered if you might be persuaded to write about the well-manufactured decision to levy a windfall tax on energy companies in an attempt to alleviate what could be a shocking increase in household bills this autumn.
Specifically, from a policy perspective, it interests me that this is being done as a windfall tax on the companies and not, for example, as a temporary reduction in VaT on domestic fuels (i.e. the Government is robbing Peter to pay Paul, rather than trim income and expenses overall).
Worse, there is just no indication that one round of relief will be enough or that prices will drop after the current highs. For example, when the price of petrol first went over £1.25/litre during the 2nd Gulf War, it did eventually drop back – but to nothing like the pre-spike levels… and oil company profits ballooned at the same time.
I have been thinking about this practice and how brief periods of exceptionally difficult conditions are then used to soften up citizens so that companies can carve out a bit more profit when things settle down.
Seems like a bit of a duplicitous policy, but it also seems like it’s happening right before our eyes…
The energy companies making windfall profits aren’t the ones charging the high retail prices. A windfall tax won’t directly help with household bills. It will help fund the cost of the assistance measures Sunak announced.
The case for this is obvious. BP and Shell have made huge unearned profits because the market price for gas has inflated greatly. They could be taxed at 100% on these excess profits and it wouldn’t affect their previously planned investments one iota. Their whining about this has been ridiculous.
I agree removing the 5% VAT on energy would directly help everyone buying domestic energy. Suspending the green levies would help even more.
“Suspending the green levies would help even more.”
Perhaps a better way to do this – one to incentivise the companies to be a bit more proactive – would be to enact an “energy renewal” law. The idea would be to limit by law the dividends that they companies could pay their shareholders based on the percentage of their energy being provided by renewable sources.
For example, 0% renewable electricity, 0% dividends allowed.
That would send the shareholders up in arms and the management of these companies would be told in no uncertain terms to get with the program. This would massively accelerate the shift to renewables, which would lessen our reliance on foreign energy supplies.
I love the unstated implication – that it was necessary for BoJo to give a speech, but not necessary for anyone to listen to it.
Can we apply this principle more widely to his activities? Pretty please?
Excellent – thankyou.
Well, your blog made it to that pinnacle of taste and culture: Guido Fawkes’ Order Order. Result.
What is a gathering? Suppose that it is essential for work purposes that five people are together in the same room. This would provide grounds for a legal gathering. What if, having completed the work, the people remain in the same room for social reasons while eating and drinking? Is that a different gathering? I don’t know what the exact wording of the regulations were, but the Sue Gray report does not say that regulations required that people gathered for a lawful purpose could do nothing else as part of that gathering. This is in contrast to the original wording which prevented people leaving home except for some purposes and which was later amended to require them to go home once the lawful purpose no longer applied.
Furthermore, what is the location of a gathering? If multiple groups of people have a lawful purpose for gathering in number 10, are these different gatherings if the groups are in independent parts of the building? In parts which require the groups to share facilities (e.g. toilets, break room)? What if they are in adjacent rooms with no barrier between them? What if they are in the same room occupying adjacent desks? It seems to me that the law was totally unclear on this and people have applied their own interpretations based on what they thing is sensible. If the regulations had been in place over the last 100 years, we would have had many decisions which would have arrived at a known meaning. The use of fixed penalties is unsatisfactory as few people are willing to challenge them, so no judicial consensus emerges.