based on its own site visit, that (i) I looked into the vestibule; and (ii) I saw a gathering in breach of the Rules. In support of this finding, the Committee refers to the facts that “drinking began at 5pm” and “continued till “the early hours”” and that the event was not work- related for “at least some of the time”. It is not explained how evidence of what was happening at completely different times has any bearing on what I would have seen had I glanced across at 21.58. Moreover, if the event was work-related for “some of the time” then there is no basis whatsoever for finding that I must have seen a rule-breaking gathering at that precise moment, let alone that I would have recognised it as such.
Committee comment: Mr Johnson ignores the plethora of evidence about how obvious it would have been to him at 9.58pm that something was happening that was in breach of the Rules and Guidance. The Committee concluded that it is likely that he knew about this particular gathering.
The argument from silence
11. The Committee fails completely to answer the point that, if it should have been obvious to me that these events were contrary to the Rules and guidance, then it should have been obvious to many others too. The Committee has not pointed to any evidence that anyone felt inhibited or scared to raise concerns either with me or with their superiors – this is pure speculation. The evidence cited in support of the Committee’s finding – that one official said they were “following a workplace culture… I did it because senior people did it” is evidence that they and the senior people referred to thought, as I did, that they were following the Rules. It contradicts rather than supports the Committee’s findings. More importantly, the Committee has not quoted from or even summarised the numerous witnesses who gave sworn evidence that they thought they were following the Rules. Again, the evidence that supports me and contradicts the Committee’s findings is simply ignored.
Committee comment: Mr Johnson was alerted to the possibility of breaches of the Guidance by his Principal Private Secretary, Martin Reynolds. It is not correct that there is no evidence that it was obvious to others. Mr Johnson has that evidence from a senior No. 10 official as well as the evidence of Lee Cain and Jack Doyle’s WhatsApp message.
The interpretation of the guidance
12. The Committee now accepts that I am correct that the guidance required social distancing “wherever possible” and that the instruction that “only absolutely necessary participants should physically attend meetings” was one that “usually” rather than always applied. However, despite my reading of the guidance being correct, and the Committee having to accept that its own reading was wrong, the Committee somehow concludes that my interpretation was a “contrivance to mislead the House”. Again, the Committee appears to have come up with a standard that applies only to me.
Committee comment: The Committee did not erroneously interpret the Rules and Guidance. It considered Mr Johnson’s interpretations and considered that they were false.
