The appearance of images showing Boris Johnson, glass in hand, at an exit ceremony inside Downing Street during the November 2020 confinement, has given new impetus to the controversy over whether the Prime Minister lied in denying that the parties had taken place within number 10. The images have also raised a number of questions, both about what Johnson knew and about the conduct of subsequent research.
1. Why was Johnson not fined for this event?
This is something that has been baffled by lawyers since the images were revealed Monday by ITV News. It is fair to say that, so far, no one has given a satisfactory answer.
Police in riot gear stormed a rally on Friday, removing hundreds of protesters by truck. June 2020. But the police did not penalize. Johnson for the November 13, 2020 meeting, or even, reports say, send him a questionnaire about it. However, other people were fined there.
The apparent explanation given by Transportation Secretary Grant Shapps on Tuesday was that Johnson had just come in to toast for Lee Cain, his outgoing communications chief, celebrating his departure.
But some in attendance say the whole event was instigated by Johnson, who poured drinks, made a speech, and stayed up to 25 minutes. So unless the police explain their decision, which seems unlikely, their lack of a fine remains a mystery.
2. Was it really a party?
Apparently, Shapps’ argument was that even though it was a party, Johnson was not at a party. People looking at the raised glasses and the table full of bottles of wine and liquor, as well as takeaway food, might disagree. However, this is a somewhat semantic and not entirely relevant debate.
The legal orientation of the time, during the 28-day blockade of England’s “switch”, allowed meetings inside people who did not belong to the same household in only a handful of conditions, mostly very such as funerals, vigils and in circumstances where children live between two houses.
The only potentially relevant to the holding of the outing was the exception for meetings considered “reasonably necessary” for work purposes. But even so, what is shown in the pictures seems to fall far short of this stipulation.
The most detailed job guide published at the time states that face-to-face meetings should be avoided whenever possible, adding: “Only absolutely necessary participants should attend the meetings and should keep a 2 m separation throughout the process “. There is no talk of drinks or speeches.
3. So Johnson cheated on parliament?
In December last year, when reports of several meetings began to emerge, Johnson was questioned in parliament by Labor MP Catherine West about the November 13 event. In response, the prime minister said that “the rules have been followed at all times.”
This would seem inaccurate in two respects. First, since others were fined for attending, the meeting was not clearly legal. But even on the basis that Johnson argued that at that time he did not believe that any rule had been broken; what is shown in the photos makes this statement hard to believe. To most viewers, it looks a lot like a party.
The Privilege Committee of the Commons will decide on this when conducting its own investigation. Even if the multi-party group of MPs rules that Johnson cheated on parliament, there is no legal requirement for him to resign, just a convention that this would happen.
Partygate: Boris Johnson under new scrutiny after new party images appear: video report
4. How and why were the images leaked?
Shortly before they were published, Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s former chief aide, posted one of his intermittent blog posts stating (among other things) that the next day, more or less, photos would appear that would make “any reasonable person “concluded that the Prime Minister had lied.
Cummings left number 10 on the same day as Cain, though with a bit of an appearance, leaving no drinks, so he would have a good idea of what happened. He also clearly despises Johnson and would have reason to filter out harmful images.
That being said, we don’t know who leaked them, and there’s no shortage of No. 10 former employees or their associates who could opt out. The “why” seems simpler: damaging Johnson’s credibility ahead of the upcoming civil service report to the parties, led by Sue Gray.
Sign up for First Edition, our free daily newsletter, every business day in the morning at 7am
5. Will the photos be in Gray’s report?
Some images are expected to appear, although it is not yet known which ones. Gray is expected to identify only senior officials, so if he were to use images such as those delivered to ITV, he would have to blur some attendees, making it less likely. However, she is inclined to criticize a broader drinking culture and not follow the rules on and around Downing Street. It remains to be seen whether the blame ultimately falls on Johnson or his staff.