3rd March 2023
Nobody knows for certain if the privileges committee of the House of Commons will find if Boris Johnson lied to the house and, if so, whether that constituted a contempt.
(Or whether he is on contempt for not speedily correcting the record, which where I and others think he may be vulnerable.)
Nobody also knows whether Johnson will suffer any sanction if he is found to have been in contempt.
And so because nobody knows, then there is an element of risk in how Johnson approaches the investigation.
He is currently adopting a bullish and legalistic approach, as if by force of nature he can prevail against this nuisance.
Such approaches do work and probably have worked for Johnson in the past.
He may well be cleared, or he will be able to boast to those with short attention spans that he was “cleared”.
But.
He does not know that for certain.
And so his decisions so far in taking such a robust and argumentative approach may not be now help him.
*
There often comes a point in litigation when the loudly assertive party realises that things have gone against them.
It usually happens when that party has sight of the evidence.
This is because many cases are decided not on legal points, and still less on advocacy (sorry, barristers), but on the preponderance of evidence.
If the evidence is against you, you may bluster or search for procedural technicalities, or even invoke human rights arguments, but those things will rarely save you.
Of course, a certain type of individual will shrug and put their head down and charge anyway.
And sometimes that actually works.
But it is a high risk strategy.
What therefore often happens is there is a sudden pivot.
We go at a stroke from (affected) outrage and incredulity to (similarly insincere) “lessons learned” and “lines drawn” and “moving on”.
The prima facie evidence against Johnson (a summary of which has been published today, and is worth reading in full) looks strong.
He certainly has a case to answer.
And he also has a decision to make.
Will he charge?
Or will he change tack so as to avoid a more onerous sanction?
***
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Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
What might happen to Johnson if he is found to have lied under oath before a parliamentary committee that isn’t a legal process?
Could there be implications beyond the political ones?
I don’t think so. Traditionally Parliament had the power to imprison people for contempt, but that is now tricky because of the European equivalent of the “due process” clause in America. This could be solved by creating a statutory offence of “contempt of Parliament”, but that hasn’t been done (yet) so he is safe.
I doubt it. This is really more a question of politics, not law.
If there were a sanction for ‘brass neck’, he’d surely get one, or several.
But it’s a given that Johnson rarely tells the unadulterated truth, is frequently a total stranger to it, and often invents his own truths. Today’s comments from him seems to be an example of the last.
From privileges committee:
“The evidence strongly suggests that breaches of guidance would have been obvious to Mr Johnson at the time.. There is evidence that those who were advising Mr Johnson .. were .. struggling to contend that some gatherings were within the rules”
He will have been advised that he can’t win on the facts. His only chance is seeking to exclude evidence or by arguing some contrived legal/constitutional technicalities.
I’m guessing something like the Bill Clinton defence:
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
“Will he charge?” – seems likely. Johnson doesn’t do humble and does bluster and lying when he’s up against a wall.
“Or will he change tack so as to avoid a more onerous sanction?” – is there likely to be any difference in sanction, given that the committee will make its decision on his past actions only? He either did or didn’t mislead the House. It’s not a criminal court with mitigating factors taken into account when sentencing.
I’m quietly enjoying the pre-Schadenfreude feeling for now.
I rather love the contrast between the precision of the Committee’s report (partly due to Johnson’s legalistic approach?) and the photographs in the Appendix, with the wine, champagne, ..
Johnson has asserted that there is no evidence that he knowingly misled the house. Having deleted his WhatsApp account doesn’t mean that his conversations with others won’t surface ahead of his scheduled appearance.
He is now in a very interesting position.
While he might have to back down temporarily and as minimally as possible for good tactical reasons, Johnson’s ego is almost certainly too fragile for him to change behaviour unless he absolutely must.
It’ll be EXTRAORDINARILY difficult for his advisors even to persuade him to think rationally through his options and what the consequences of each will be.
Johnson seems to have learnt since childhood that the social norms don’t apply to him; and he’s a wimp if he allows them to. As a non-reflective middle-aged man with a history of bad relationships, disasters and broken promises behind him, how could he take the risk of reinventing his personality? He doesn’t want to look at himself in the mirror.
Of course he’ll get away with it. This country is built on people like him getting away with it. It’s the first article of the laughably unwritten constitution.
I think there will be a lot of extremely upset people when they realise that Johnson will receive no real punishment even if he is found to have been in contempt.
Surely he should at least be barred from holding public office again? Electors in whichever constituency he ends up in have of course the ultimate sanction but even if he loses his seat there will always be an audience prepared to listen to his lies and applaud his deceitful behaviour.
I suppose the question will be ‘how inconvenient will it be to sanction Boris’?
For some he seems the golden boy who might yet get the Tories out the ordure. But thinking ahead, will Boris have a renaissance come election time? Rather than dragging him on a hurdle for the HD&Q treatment might he be better wrapped in cotton wool and held in reserve. Just in case Mr Sunak does not please the right donors.
A light slap on the wrist I think – is that still allowed?
As he was born in New York, I sincerely hope that the Conservative’s policy of stripping citizenship from criminals is somehow applied to him [and others of his ilk] and he is deported to the US (or Rwanda).
A bit optimistic, maybe, but looking on the bright side is good for the soul.