According to sources’ claims from last night, a prominent QC will today provide a fatal blow to the Partygate investigation on Boris Johnson.
According to a senior source, Lord Pannick will argue that the manner MPs are handling the probe might jeopardize democracy.
The Commons privileges committee has vowed to punish Mr Johnson even if he simply unwittingly misled Parliament regarding meetings at No 10 during lockdown. However, Lord Pannick, who represented the opposition in several Brexit cases, is anticipated to contend that the investigation may silence ministers.
The senior source who has seen the shocking legal intervention that Downing Street is set to publish today added, “This isn’t for Boris, but for all future PMs and MPs.”
According to a senior source, Lord Pannick (seen in 2016) will claim that the Partygate probe is being conducted by MPs in a manner that threatens democracy.
If ministers believe they could be held in contempt for unintentionally providing the incorrect response, they will never be allowed to speak.
The prominent QC’s legal advice is said to have been requested out of concern about the potential impact the cross-party investigation may have on governmental operations. It is anticipated that the discussion will center on an unanticipated modification to the inquiry’s scope.
Only when it is shown that a minister intentionally or knowingly deceived the House will they often face censure.
But the committee was accused of moving the goalposts by deciding in July to take the Prime Minister’s intentions into account when he told MPs last year that ‘the rules were followed at all times’.
If Mr. Johnson (seen above on September 21, 2022) is convicted in contempt of court, he may be expelled from the House of Commons and potentially lose his seat in an upcoming by-election.
If Mr. Johnson is convicted in contempt of court, he may be expelled from the House of Representatives and potentially lose his seat in a by-election.
The committee said that it will adhere to the interpretation of Eve Samson, the clerk of the journals, who stated: “It is for the committee and the House to establish whether a contempt has occurred and the purpose of the contemnor is not important to reaching that judgment.”
Lord Pannick’s recommendation, according to the PM’s supporters last night, should put an end to the investigation. “This professional legal judgment indicates that the probe was a prejudiced, Kafkaesque witch-hunt. It should now be ended before it causes any more harm,” said Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary.
The legal eagle who took on No10 and won
One of the finest legal minds of his generation, Lord Pannick could never be accused of being a government patsy.
In 2019, the QC represented pro-Remain campaigner Gina Miller in the Supreme Court as she challenged Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament.
Opening the hearing, he said: ‘No Prime Minister has abused his power in the manner in which we allege in at least the last 50 years. The Prime Minister’s motive was to silence Parliament.
Lord Pannick, pictured, secured a victory for Miss Miller and caused a huge heartache for the PM. In 2017, and again representing Miss Miller, he had successfully argued that Parliament had to give its consent to the triggering of Article 50 – the ‘starting gun’ of the Brexit process.
Later, in an article about his involvement in the 2019 case, Lord Pannick described the ‘stench of unconstitutionality coming from 10 Downing Street’.
The crossbench peer won a scholarship to a London independent school and read law at Hertford College, Oxford. His father owned a shoe shop in east London and his mother was a school secretary.
Lord Pannick arriving at the Supreme Court in London in 2019
Critics argue that ministers regularly make unintentional errors at the despatch box in the Commons that later have to be corrected, and so the committee’s stance will have a ‘chilling’ effect on all future statements.
It is feared they may in future try to avoid giving detailed answers and simply promise to write to MPs with facts and figures at a later date.
The document published today is also expected to question the wider operation of the inquiry, which is being led by veteran Labour MP Harriet Harman despite concerns over her impartiality.
Miss Harman has already declared on Twitter that the PM’s decision to accept a fine over Partygate meant he had misled MPs.
Sources said today’s document will question why witnesses are allowed to give evidence anonymously, contrary to standard procedure in court cases, and why the PM has not been given the full details of the case against him.
An insider said of the QC’s legal advice: ‘It is absolutely devastating.’
The advice was commissioned by the Office of the Prime Minister, which sits within the Cabinet Office.
Allies of the PM say that if the inquiry was being carried out by a government department or quango its flaws would lead it to being challenged and potentially ruled unlawful by judges. But parliamentary privilege means it cannot be subjected to judicial review. Former Cabinet minister David Jones warned this week that the Partygate probe risked making it ‘impossible to govern’.
The Mail on Sunday previously reported that legal advice drawn up for the PM by his supporters has warned the investigation could lead to the ‘paralysis’ of government and was ‘inconsistent with the principles of natural justice and fair trial’. Because the whole House of Commons voted for the inquiry to take place it is continuing despite Mr Johnson’s resignation. It would even carry on were he to step down as an MP.
Tory leadership frontrunner Liz Truss has said she would vote against the inquiry, which comes after a criminal investigation by Scotland Yard that led to the PM receiving a fine. A report by senior civil servant Sue Gray also found that ‘failures of leadership and judgment in No 10’.
Miss Truss’s rival Rishi Sunak (pictured with PM Boris Johnson in 2020) has indicated the inquiry should be allowed to run its course.
But Miss Truss’s rival Rishi Sunak has indicated it should be allowed to run its course. The committee insists it has not changed the rules.
In response to criticism earlier this summer a spokesman said: ‘A decision on whether a contempt has been committed is for the committee and finally the House to decide on the basis of the evidence received in the course of the inquiry.
‘The three questions the committee will set out to answer in its inquiry are: (1) whether the House was misled; (2) if so, whether that was a contempt – that is to say an action or omission which may have obstructed or impeded the functioning of the House of Commons; and (3) if so, how serious was that contempt. The committee has not yet assessed the evidence nor has it prejudged any of these questions.
‘The issue of whether the House was deliberately misled may arise under steps (2) or (3) of the committee’s investigation.’