was planning to disregard it. I also made use of some of it in my Further Submission, although I did not repeat what was in my earlier Submissions as they were already before the Committee. The Committee’s fundamental error is that the responsibility to “make any use” of this evidence was not mine but its own. It is the Committee that must fairly and objectively make use of and have regard to all of the evidence, whether for or against the allegations against me. The document demonstrates that the Committee has failed in this duty. The fact that it lays responsibility for its partial selection of the evidence at my door shows just how profoundly it has fallen into error. Its stance might be justified as a prosecutor in an adversarial process where each party can call its own witnesses before an impartial tribunal. As I had feared, this is precisely how the Committee seems to have approached its task.
Committee comment: Mr Johnson and his lawyers are well aware that the Committee required all evidence to be accompanied by a statement of truth. Contrary to Mr Johnson’s bald assertion, it has considered all of that evidence whether it is supportive of or adverse to Mr Johnson. Mr Johnson had all of the materials available to the Committee and in time to identify any material that he wished to rely upon as evidence and seek statements of truth from those witnesses. He chose to wait until the last moment before the oral hearing to start discussions about the evidence upon which he wanted to rely. Mr Johnson unfairly complained in that hearing that evidence on which he wished to rely had not been pursued. In any event, he had the right to use all of the disclosed material, whether or not accompanied by a statement of truth, during the oral hearing. He was provided with those materials for that purpose. The Committee asked him to identify the evidence and pursued it for him. Once received with a statement of truth, Mr Johnson chose to place no reliance upon it. There is accordingly no truth in the assertion that the Committee planned to disregard anything that supported Mr Johnson.
My assurances to the House on 8 December 2021
4. The Committee accepts that what I actually said about the scope of the assurances I received was accurate: I had repeatedly been assured that the event on 18 December 2020 was within the Rules. My words were clear and explicit and had been prepared with input from multiple officials and advisers. I also explained under oath, if there was any possibility of confusion, what I meant by those words. Despite my words being accurate, clear, undisputed and confirmed under oath, the Committee nevertheless finds that I deliberately gave the House a “misleading impression” that I meant something entirely different. In other words, I am condemned not for what I actually said but for what the Committee has now decided that I meant
Committee comment: The Committee is entitled to come to a view about the credibility of what Mr Johnson said to the House and to the Committee. In so far as he asserts that there are ‘multiple officials and advisers’ who provided assurances or had input into his statements, Mr Johnson had the opportunity to identify them and did not do so despite indicating that he would. The Committee asked all of the witnesses who it believed had relevant information about Mr Johnson’s knowledge
