Embarrassing Legal Misstep: Keir Starmer, Former Director of Public Prosecutions, Gets the Law Wrong.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), has found himself embroiled in an embarrassing legal misstep.
In a dramatic climbdown, Labour have been forced to retract a claim made by Keir Starmer during Prime Ministers Questions (PMQs) in late 2024, when he accused Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak of having “convictions” for breaches of COVID-19 rules.
Starmer’s accusation has been officially debunked, as Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) issued for such infractions do not amount to criminal convictions—a legal distinction a former Director of Public Prosecutions would be expected to know.
The controversy erupted during heated Commons exchanges when Starmer attempted to defend his own controversial appointment of Louise Haigh, a Cabinet minister with a conviction for fraud.
A Question of Judgment
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch had questioned Starmer’s judgment in appointing Haigh as Transport Secretary despite her past fraud conviction. Badenoch demanded answers, stating: “The public deserves an explanation for why Keir Starmer knowingly appointed a convicted fraudster to be his transport secretary. What was he thinking?”
She further criticised the Starmer, saying: “The country needs conviction politicians, not politicians with convictions.”
In response, Starmer attempted a comeback, saying: “I gently remind her that two of her predecessors had convictions for breaking the Covid rules.”
The comment referred to Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak receiving £50 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) for attending a “gathering” in between meetings in Downing Street during the COVID-19 lockdown. However, Starmer’s assertion was legally incorrect, as FPNs are not classified as criminal convictions.
Boris Hits Back
Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson accused Keir Starmer of misleading the House, calling it a “resigning offence.” Johnson stated: “The Prime Minister has clearly misled the House and should correct the record today.” He was supported by former Solicitor General Sir Michael Ellis, who argued that Starmer, as a former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), should have been fully aware of the legal distinction between Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) and criminal convictions.
Sir Michael Ellis remarked: “A former DPP really ought to know that Fixed Penalty Notices are not criminal convictions. By that token, he has just suggested that millions of people handed parking tickets now have criminal convictions, which is plainly nonsense.”
At the time, Starmer brushed off the calls, and the matter appeared to fade from public view. However, behind the scenes, Starmer has now been forced into a quiet retreat.
The Quiet Climbdown
The retraction did not come from Starmer himself, as parliamentary protocol might dictate. Instead, it was delivered in a muted fashion by one of his key ministerial allies, Georgia Gould, who serves as Cabinet Office minister.
Responding to a written parliamentary question from Conservative MP Richard Holden, Gould acknowledged Keir Starmer’s error:
“My Rt Hon Friend the Prime Minister was referring to the Fixed Penalty Notices received by two former Prime Ministers for breaking COVID lockdown rules. The Prime Minister is happy to clarify that a Fixed Penalty Notice does not constitute a criminal conviction. He stands by the relevance of raising to the attention of the House that two former Conservative Prime Ministers were fined by the police for breaking the COVID rules that they put in place for others.”
Questions About Accountability
The quiet nature of the correction has raised eyebrows. Under usual parliamentary form, Starmer would be expected to correct the record verbally in the Commons—a point not lost on political observers. Critics argue that the Conservatives missed a trick by failing to insist on a formal retraction at the time, allowing the error to linger and the correction to slip under the radar.
While Starmer has remained silent on the matter, the episode raises uncomfortable questions about his judgment, credibility and knowledge of law. As the former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, he should have been acutely aware of the legal distinctions involved in the matter. His willingness to make such a bold but inaccurate claim has provided ammunition for his opponents, who accuse him of prioritising political point-scoring over factual accuracy.
As others have pointed out: “Misleading the House is a serious matter and, traditionally, a resigning offence.”
Main Image: For illustration purposes only. Image created with Grok.
Should Farmer Harmer Starmer be forced to apologise in the house still ? I think so