Committee comment: Mr Johnson’s lawyer’s explanation was considered and is quoted in full in the report. Mr Johnson gave the clear impression in oral evidence that he knew who he wanted to identify and he then failed to identify that person. His explanation for that failure is unconvincing.
My personal knowledge that the Rules were broken
8. The Committee purports to rule, as a matter of law, that it could never be reasonably necessary for work to attend a gathering purely to raise staff morale, and that the duration for which I attended any event is irrelevant. Therefore, it concludes, I must have known the Rules were broken even if I was present at such gatherings only for a few minutes. This finding is fundamentally wrong in multiple ways. First, the Committee has no power to purport to make such a finding and there is no precedent or judgment in support of its position – it is purely the Committee’s own interpretation of the law. Second, that interpretation appears to be in direct contradiction to the one adopted by the Met Police, who didn’t fine me for my attendance at precisely the same events and who have explained to the Committee that the lawfulness of a gathering “may have changed throughout the duration of the gathering”. The Committee does not refer to or have any regard to the Met Police’s advice, which obviously is correct. Third, as I set out below, it was the understanding of numerous officials who gave evidence to the Committee that they thought they were following the Rules. The Committee appears to have devised its legal test just for me.
Committee comment: The Committee does not interpret the law. It is, however, entitled to compare the plain language of the Rules and Guidance with what Mr Johnson said at the time when he was exhorting the public to follow those Rules and Guidance, and Mr Johnson’s attempts in evidence to re-interpret what the words meant.
9. Finally, the Committee’s reasoning ignores the actual question it must answer, which is whether I honestly believed that the Rules had been broken at the events I attended. The Committee can only find otherwise by unilaterally declaring my attendance as unlawful and then asserting that, uniquely amongst everyone at No10, I must have known that to be the case.
Committee comment: The Committee is entitled to conclude on all the evidence that Mr Johnson did not honestly believe what he said he believed or that he deliberately closed his mind to the obvious or to his own knowledge.
My personal knowledge of the event on 18 December 2020
10. The Committee’s findings about the event on 18 December 2020 appear to abandon completely any adherence to the ‘clear and cogent evidence’ test which it accepts it must adopt, and enters the realm of pure speculation. I gave evidence on oath that I was not aware of any event taking place and I did not recall seeing anything that appeared to me to be against the Rules when I went up to my flat at 21.58 that evening. Even if, despite my evidence to the contrary, the Committee found that I must have glanced up, there is no evidence whatsoever before the Committee about what was happening in the Press Office at that precise moment. There is, however, plenty of evidence before the Committee that the number of people present varied throughout the evening, that people came and went, and that many stayed at their desks to work. Despite this evidence, the Committee finds,
