REVEALED: The Privileges Committee’s Great British stitch-up of Boris

By ShepherdWales.

We have forensically examined the ‘evidence’ against Boris Johnson. Short answer; there is none.

Long answer starts here, where we explain the Sue Gray Party Gate report and its subsequent impact on the privilege committee, media coverage, public discourse and the narrative of PartyGate.

In this report we question whether Boris Johnson has been treated fairly and proportionately.  We are also questioning whether the timing, selective context and vague wording was premeditated.  

Finally, we are going to compare the findings in Sue Gray’s final report with the Privileges Committee’s interim report to assess the fairness of the proceedings which is assessing Boris Johnson’s conduct in the House of Commons. We fear the consequences of this procedure will have lasting impacts on all members of the house.

Did you know Sue Gray actually produced two reports into ‘PartyGate’?  The first one is largely forgotten but it is this one that had the most impact on the events that followed. 

1. On January 31st 2022, the initial report was published 5 days after the Metropolitan police took over the investigation.

2. On 25th May 2022, the final report after the conclusion of the Metropolitan Police investigation.

The Metropolitan Police announced their investigation into parties on the 25th January 2021, having been pressured by the Good Law Project and allegedly London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

The Good Law project were very proud to emphasis their part in encouraging the Met to investigate, so much so that they put it on their website and Barrister Adam Wagner confirmed it on Twitter.  You may recall Adam Wagner was the ‘Go to’ TV expert on the covid laws.

Due to the Met police taking over the investigation, Sue Gray decided to release an initial report.  This was her decision. 

Ms Gray states in the initial report that she thought about whether it was right to give an initial finding but felt the ‘widespread public interest’ justified setting out some general findings at that time.

Did it?  Was the public interest served by the release of a vague, incomplete document?

Is it normal to make comment when a police investigation is ongoing? Is it fair, especially when the stakes are as high as ousting a democratically elected Prime Minister?

It was at the Met Police’s direction that Sue Gray was unable to give specifics and reported only on gatherings that they chose not to investigate further.  Those events were not being investigated because they did not break the rules as judged by the Met Police.

So, again, was it fair to comment at that time?

Anyone reading the initial report when it was released, would probably agree it read badly for Boris Johnson.  The wording didn’t distinguish between civil servants or politicians, but spoke extensively about the ‘heart of government’ and ‘failures of leadership’ – which most readers, not familiar with the machinery of Westminster, interpreted as the Prime Minister. 

The media also used the Prime Minister as the focus for every ‘Partygate’ article written.  With some journalists and commentators stating that Boris Johnson was partying the evening before Prince Philip’s funeral – this was false but repeatedly went unchallenged.

The initial report also speaks at length about the culture within No 10, specifically alcohol and infers that this happened because Boris Johnson was Prime Minister and allowed it.

Did it? Is the ‘culture’ of alcohol and parties down the leadership of the then Prime Minister? Let’s take a look.

Sue Gray herself, pre-pandemic was photographed enjoying karaoke at a ‘boozy Whitehall’ bash. According to civil servant themselves an ‘alcohol suitcase’ often brought booze in for afterwork parties which also occurred under previous Prime Ministers such as Cameron and May.

Articles also appeared about Sue Gray using the term ‘Wine Time Fridays’ (that she used in her pub in Northern Ireland) suggesting it was a long-standing thing in her walk of life.

The culture wasn’t a culture determined by who was Prime Minister at any one time.  The culture was a culture developed and encouraged over the years, even decades, under successive governments and by those at the top of the civil service.

But why didn’t Boris Johnson stop it the moment we locked down?

When we locked down Boris promptly caught covid, went into isolation for 10 days, was admitted to hospital and transferred to the ICU. 

Upon being discharged from hospital, the Prime Minister then went to Chequers for about a month to recuperate.  Boris and Carrie then had the birth of their first child and promptly returned to work at the end of April 2020 as lockdown one was easing.

In short: Boris was not even in Downing Street to stop it. 

The fact is the culture didn’t stop because it had gone on forever and the civil service bosses kept it going even in Boris’ absence and senior civil servants didn’t have an issue with it.  No top civil servant to our knowledge lost their job over Party Gate.

The head of ethics partied.

The head of covid rules partied.

The head of civil service partied.

It was unearthed in the main report that it was actually senior civil servants at the helm, but by then the narrative was set – thanks to the vagueness of Sue Gray’s first report.

In her first report Ms. Gray was basically reporting on events the Met Police had deemed were not breaking the law.  Gatherings that the Met Police didn’t feel had reached the threshold for investigation. So should Sue Gray have even reported on them at that time and potentially even at all?

We feel most would say that the 1st report influenced their opinion about alleged partying in Westminster without the full facts and context being disclosed.

In her first report Sue Gray couldn’t expressly state who was responsible for what, so it was left to the reader to surmise whilst emphasising the ‘heart of government’ and ‘failure of leadership’.

Did this first report fuel the feverish nature of the Party Gate story and encourage Conservative MPs to form a view prior to the end of the police investigation and subsequent publication of the full report?

Was the decision to report on the non ‘parties’ at that time influenced by her politics?

After completion of the Met police investigation and subsequent publication of the second Sue Gray report we wondered if Conservative MPs had read the same report that we had?  

At the end of all of the investigations the only rule breaking ‘party’ that the then Prime Minister attended was his birthday gathering over lunch in the cabinet office as reported at the time by The Times. This was a mere six days before an emergency was declared on Bournemouth beach due to overcrowding.

Yet, in the media, across our TV screens and in a frankly ghastly commons debate – where Boris Johnson corrected the record and apologised again – he was held responsible for over 100 fines given out for actual law breaking parties. This included the main one on the eve of Prince Philip’s funeral – when he wasn’t even in London but standing on the door step of Chequers paying his respects in the national silence. 

Senior civil servants, whilst clearly at fault based on the final Sue Gray report, got away with it.

Senior civil servants, whilst clearly at fault based on the final Sue Gray report, got away with it.

Sue Gray’s final report, when she was free to publish everything, still chose to not explicitly state any distinction between civil servants and politicians and yet, it is likely that these are the same people who ‘assured’ the Prime Minister that no rules were broken.

Why didn’t Sue Gray put any of this context into her first (or final) report? 

New Conservative MPs may not have known the culture amongst civil servants in Downing Street / Whitehall is and has always been boozy pre-Boris. Plus with misinformation and a media fanned frenzy over a year later, many simply forgot that Boris was absent from Downing Street for most of the first lockdown.

Upon speaking to contacts it wouldn’t surprise us if the BYO booze email event of May 20th 2020 that kicked the whole party gate saga off wasn’t a surprise welcome back for the PM that they nearly lost to Covid19.

Here lies the issue:  the culture wasn’t Boris Johnson’s.  It was a civil service culture that Sue Gray historically took part in. 

Here lies the issue:  the culture wasn’t Boris Johnson’s.  It was a civil service culture that Sue Gray historically took part in. 

The initial report most likely pushed Conservative MPs and the general public to believe it was down to Boris Johnson’s failure of leadership but that wasn’t born out in the FPNs or the final report.  The failure of leadership was the leadership of the civil service.

Sadly the narrative set by inference in that first report fed the media frenzy after the ultimate goal: The resignation of the democratically elected Prime Minister. So when Boris Johnson was awarded an FPN for the surprise birthday cake on June 19th 2020 by the Met Police, the frenzy went wild.

Sadly the narrative set by inference in that first report fed the media frenzy that were after the Prime Minister’s resignation. 

So when Boris Johnson was awarded an FPN for the surprise birthday cake on June 19th 2020 by the Met Police, the frenzy went wild.

Many people felt that if Boris had received an FPN for THAT gathering then surely he’d end up being fined for every gathering that he attended. 

When questioned, however, Boris Johnson appeared calm and confident that the final report would vindicate him.

Yet buying into the media frenzy, some Conservative MPs became more convinced Boris had to go saying surely knew about the parties and had clearly lied.  So when Labour proposed referring Boris Johnson to the Privileges Committee for misleading parliament, many conservative MPs didn’t oppose it. 

That initial report set the narrative for the weeks that followed which culminated in the initial (and only) FPN for Boris Johnson and subsequent referral to the Privileges Committee.

Important to note that referral to the Privilege Committee was PRIOR to the completion of the Metropolitan Police Force investigation.  The MPs had already made up their minds that Boris Johnson had lied before they were in possession of the full facts.  What had they based their evidence on? Sue Gray’s initial report and the media frenzy that followed it.

What had they based their evidence on? Sue Gray’s initial report and the media frenzy that followed it.

The Privileges Committee have now released their interim report in order for Boris Johnson to know the evidence against him. 

It’s worth noting this is at the request of his lawyers and wasn’t going to be the case.  Unlike a court of law, where the defendant gets to know all the evidence against him/her and has the opportunity to cross examine witnesses, the original plan for this committee was to interview Boris Johnson without him having prior knowledge of the evidence.  He is still unable to cross examine the witnesses although he is at least now, at his lawyers request, allowed to know who is saying what.

We have read the Privileges Committee report.  We have also re-read the second Sue Gray Party gate report and compared the two.

The Privileges Committee appears to be moving the goal posts from the usual Ministerial Code standard of ‘intentionally misleading the house’ with regards to what is said at the despatch box or in committee to being reckless about social distancing across the entire Covid pandemic. 

That standard was established by a resolution of the House of Commons in 1997 – it binds the Committee, yet they say they can ignore it. For the record if that test was applied to Sir Keir Starmer’s weekend in Durham we don’t think he’d pass it.

Intention matters, as we hope to demonstrate:

To intend to mislead is to lie.  To inadvertently mislead is to report what you think is true but later find out that it wasn’t.  That’s what the ministerial code distinguishes between. However the Privilege Committee appears to have added in ‘recklessly misleading.’

What’s this addition of reckless? How are they defining that in action?

There have been media reports that intention has been removed from the charge.  Lord Pannick KC says it has. Chris Bryant MP has tweeted that it has.  What does the report say?  The report includes ‘reckless’ (meaning what exactly?) to get round the fact that proving that someone intentionally lied is a very high bar – with good parliamentary reason.

The reason they have justified for lowering the bar of intention to reckless is because they state here that they aren’t adjudicating on whether Boris Johnson broke the ministerial code. That’s irrelevant and still not in line with the resolution in 1997.

Many, including us, thought that was the whole point of this committee.  Surely the whole session around which the motion was debated in the House of Commons was based on intent to mislead?  Every speaker spoke about intent.  If solely intent was included then they would be assessing the former PM against the code.  They have lowered the bar – which they are entitled to do, but it will have far reaching consequences. 

A bar which many of the current MPs, including the leader of the opposition and the normal chairman of this committee (Chris Bryant MP) would most likely fail.

They go on to say in the report – published of course before Sue Gray defected to Labour – that they are using the Metropolitan Police conclusions and the Sue Gray Report as evidence but their press releases post ‘SueGrayGate’ state they are using their own evidence gathered. 

One has to wonder why some people failed to present evidence when asked by the police or Sue Gray though? Is the committee itself recklessly misleading the house?

One has to wonder why some people failed to present evidence when asked by the police or Sue Gray though? Is the committee itself recklessly misleading the house?

Our initial reading of the beginning of this report suggests they have amended the requirement of intent to reckless but they haven’t defined what constitutes a ‘reckless misleading’.  Is this so that they can, in effect, make the evidence fit the crime? Basically ensure a sanction.  Are they trying to ensure that Boris Johnson can not return as Prime Minister?

Interestingly they haven’t recognised in their report to Boris Johnson that Lord Pannick (Boris Johnson’s barrister – of Gina Millar Art50 fame) has told them that this committee would be thrown out of a court of law and ruled unlawful.

The report then goes through each gathering in turn that Boris Johnson attended in which individuals received FPNs.  We are simply going to put the description from the Privileges Committee report for each event alongside what Sue Grey’s final report said. 

It’s worth noting Boris Johnson’s actual presence and work involvement in each event as evidenced in the Sue Gray report as opposed to the open ended inference of extended social attendance in the privilege committee account. 

Remember the Privileges Committee need to prove that Boris knew that these events would become rule breaking – as per the FPNs awarded to the civil servants.

May 20th 2020-BYO Email, 2 weeks after Boris Johnson returns to Downing Street post his Covid19 infection.

No fine for Boris Johnson

Privilege Committee Initial Report.                           Sue Gray Final report    

                                                                                

19th June 2020 – The Birthday Surprise Cake

One fine for Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak

Privilege Committee Initial Report.  

                        

Sue Gray Final report

13th November – Lee Cain’s Leaving Gathering

Sue Gray concluded that Boris attended this from about 7.17pm until about 8pm when he went to his flat where some advisors were already having a meeting.

No fine for Boris Johnson

His presence was deemed ‘necessary for work’ and it therefore was not a party at the point of his attendance.

Privilege Committee Initial Report.                           Sue Gray Final report

27th November

No fine for Boris, limited attendance to give a speech

Note: 4/5 deep (PC) but 15-20 people (SG)

Also the Paul Brand Podcast quote differs (party (PB) not gathering (PC)

Privilege Committee Initial Report.                           Sue Gray Final report

18th December – The Allegra Stratton Video Event – The Main one that kicked off the investigations and the one questions were specifically asked about in the House of Commons

Note: Boris Johnson didn’t attend.  No evidence that he knew of it.

Privilege Committee Initial Report.       

                  

Sue Gray Final report

14th January

No fine for Boris – attendance 10 minutes.

Privilege Committee Initial Report

                    

Sue Gray Final report

The text from the Privileges Committee report then discusses what Boris said to the House of Commons and why they feel that he might have misled parliament in a reckless or intentioned way.

It’s worth noting that what he was actually asked is as important as what he then said in response.  When you’re asked a specific question you answer that question.

Dec 1st 2020 HoC comments from Privilege Committee Report

Boris Johnson said:

‘…all guidance was followed completely in no 10’

But

Let’s look at what he was actually asked…

Sir Keir Starmer asked:

‘As millions of people were locked down last year was a Christmas Party thrown in Downing Street for dozens of people on December the 18th?’

That’s a specific question about a specific date.  The gathering in question was the December 18th 2020 Christmas party which Sue Gray confirms Boris Johnson wasn’t at.

Again it is worth noting the Privileges Committee in their notes to Boris appear to demonstrate that they won’t be taking these words in the context of answering the specific question asked BUT will be effectively used to say that he said no one ever broke any guidance/rules during pandemic.

But Boris WAS asked a specific question about a specific date. How can this be ignored?

So the next two instances of potential ‘misleading’ were at PMQs on Dec 8th 2020.

The Privileges Committee again makes no mention of what he was actually asked in the report but places it in the footnotes.

The first relates to a direct question from Catherine West MP.

Catherine West MP asked:

‘Will the Prime Minister tell the house whether there was a party in Downing Street on 13th November.’

So a specific question about a specific event.

Boris Johnson responded:

‘No, but I am sure that whatever happened, the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times’

It’s reasonable to assume the ‘No’ was the answer to whether he could say if there was a party or not, otherwise he would have no need to say ‘but I am sure that whatever happened…’.

November 15th 2020 was Lee Cain’s Leaving event where Sue Gray states that Boris Johnson gave a speech and then left at 8pm for his flat. His attendance lasting approximately 40 minutes.  A leaving speech which the Metropolitan Police deemed was ‘necessary for work’ at the period in which Boris Johnson was present.

The next response in question is also on 8th December 2021 in PMQs and bizarrely happened before the last one but we’re going in order of the Privileges Committee report.

It’s a longer quote and the context is that the week before: 1st December Keir Starmer had asked if there was a Christmas party on 18th Dec 2020.

The day before, on the December 7th 2021, the Allegra Stratton video surfaced contradicting what the PM said the week before. Note this was the 18th December party that Boris wasn’t at and there is no evidence (in public domain) that he knew about it.

Boris started PMQs on the 8th December 2021 saying he was “repeatedly assured” suggesting he has asked his advisors and received assurance.  He is responding to a specific event on a specific day.  He set up the enquiry at this point, initially led by Simon Case and then Sue Gray.

Boris Johnson’s opening words at PMQs taken from Hansard:

Keir Starmer then goes onto to ask again a specific question about that specific 18th December party to which Boris again states:

‘I have been repeatedly assured…’

Now look at the context in which the Privilege Committee is taking these quotes.

Again, they aren’t looking at a specific answer to a specific question but judging the answers against Covid rules at every gathering and presumably therefore daily life in No 10. From this point on, the enquiry was set up.

It is worth bearing in mind Rishi Sunak also told the House of Commons that he did not attend any parties. Like Boris, Rishi was asked about a specific event but does that not matter to the Privileges Committee hearing on Boris Johnson? One rule for one and another for another?

Boris Johnson, when asked further questions at this time, simply asked people to wait for the results of the enquiry and for the House of Commons to concentrate on other things: like Russia’s imminent invasion of Ukraine.  He repeated this same response for weeks of Partygate questioning at PMQs whilst Russia was preparing to invade.

The report goes onto suggest that these comments may have misled the house because he must’ve been aware that covid rules (ie: social distancing) weren’t always being observed despite the fact he was being asked about specific events.

It also goes onto suggest that he didn’t correct the record fast enough – but to do so would’ve prejudiced an enquiry and subsequently a police investigation which he kept stating.

To prove Boris Johnson misled the house you have to prove that he knew about these specific events and considered them to not be within ‘necessary for work’ parameters.

We fail to see how they can prove it based on:

• What he exactly said and the context
• What he was asked
• His actual presence at these specific events (from the Sue Gray report)
• Lack of FPN for them from the police for these specific events

It’s clear from this report that it is based on a narrative perpetuated by the initial Sue Gray report, stoked by the British media that used influential, self confessed ‘lefty lawyers’ and absorbed by the British public as fact. It is not a narrative based in the factual findings of the Sue Gray second report months after and as evidenced by the fines received by politicians as opposed to those received by the civil service.

Conservative MPs it will be down to you whether you choose to allow this to happen.

We will leave you with a few snippets of the frenzy that followed publication of that first Sue Gray report.

Analysis on the 31st January 2021 after publication of the initial Sue Gray report. Note even Adam Wagner recognises that a spontaneous gathering is a gray area. Of course it was spontaneous for Boris, it was a surprise on his birthday!

Journalist Paul Brand also misquoted the actual words contained in the Privileges Committee evidence. The actual quote was ‘the most unsocially distanced ‘gathering‘ in the UK’ get Brand uses the word ‘party.‘ 

That change from ‘gathering’ to ‘party’ matters because Boris Johnson was specifically asked in the House of Commons about parties not gatherings. Even Kier Starmer is on camera having non socially distanced gatherings that were deemed ‘necessary for work purposes.’ 

Would this alteration be deemed fair in a court of law?  Or would the trial of Boris Johnson have been thrown out months ago?

Lord Pannick, one of the most highly respected lawyers in the country, says it would be thrown out.

---

Follow @ShepherdWales on Twitter.