5 Mr Johnson’s resignation as an MP and his attack upon the Committee
Mr Johnson’s resignation
214. The procedure adopted by the Committee stated that “If the Committee intends to criticise Mr Johnson or any other individual or body it will first send a warning letter,” and that “if an allegation is determined against Mr Johnson, [the letter will] state the Committee’s recommendation as to sanction, if any, and invite his submission on the sanction recommended.”[1] On Thursday 8 June 2023 we sent by email to Mr Johnson’s solicitors the Chair’s warning letter, and immediately despatched by hand a single hardcopy document containing extracts from the Committee’s provisionally agreed draft report, for inspection by Mr Johnson and his nominated legal advisers under secure invigilated conditions. Each page of this document was marked as follows:
PRIVILEGED AND IN STRICT CONFIDENCE–FOR THE USE OF MR JOHNSON AND HIS NOMINATED LEGAL ADVISERS ONLY
It is a contempt of the House to reveal the contents of this document. There are no other physical copies of the document in existence and the document is only made available for inspection under invigilated conditions. It must not be copied. The Committee of Privileges will consider final submissions about the content of the document before it publishes its final report to the House.
215. Within 24 hours of receiving our warning letter, on Friday 9 June 2023, Mr Johnson announced his intention to resign as an MP with immediate effect, broke the confidentiality of the process by revealing the contents of the warning letter and linked material, and attacked the Committee.
216. In his public statement, Mr Johnson impugned the Committee, the integrity of its members, and the impartiality of its staff and advisers, stating:
They have still not produced a shred of evidence that I knowingly or recklessly misled the Commons.
They know perfectly well that when I spoke in the Commons, I was saying what I believed sincerely to be true and what I had been briefed to say, like any other minister. [ … ]
Their purpose from the beginning has been to find me guilty, regardless of the facts. This is the very definition of a kangaroo court.
[…] The Committee’s report is riddled with inaccuracies and reeks of prejudice, but under their absurd and unjust process, I have no formal ability to challenge anything they say.
- ↑ Second Report, Matter referred on 21 April 2022: Proposed conduct of inquiry, HC 632, Annex 1
