Sue Gray demands to name partygate ringleaders
SUE GRAY is demanding that key players in the partygate scandal are named in her report after the Metropolitan Police closed its investigation without revealing who had been fined.
Ms Gray, the senior civil servant looking into claims of lockdown-breaking gatherings in Downing Street, is set to publish her full report next week.
She is expected to criticise senior political and Civil Service figures, calling into question why illegal social gatherings were allowed to take place.
With her report being finalised, Ms Gray is in discussions with human resources and legal teams in the Civil Service as well as trade unions to determine how explicitly she can point the finger.
Numerous figures close to the discussions told The Daily Telegraph that Ms Gray wants to name ringleaders at the parties, but fears she will come under pressure to keep some of them anonymous.
One source close to Ms Gray said: “It would be difficult to write [the report] without naming certain people or positions.”
A second said: “She is the type of person that will get stronger the more pressure the Civil Service and political people put on her.”
A third figure familiar with discussions said: “She’s got her own credibility. She doesn’t want to look like she’s trying to hide something.”
Scotland Yard yesterday announced its £460,000, four-month investigation into partygate was complete, with a total of 126 Fixed Penalty Notices issued to 83 individuals.
Boris Johnson, Carrie Johnson and Rishi Sunak each received one fine, which was announced last month.
Tory rebels who had been determined to oust the Prime Minister yesterday admitted that the lack of new fines meant there was unlikely to be a new wave of letters of no confidence – the mechanism for triggering a leadership vote.
Simon Case, who as Cabinet Secretary is the most senior civil servant in the UK, had been expected to be sanctioned but did not receive any fines, according to the Cabinet Office. The Telegraph
also understands that Sir Mark Sedwill, his predecessor who attended at least one event, has not been fined.
One source close to Ms Gray said she was “flabbergasted” that Mr Case had not received a fine and added that it had always been her intention to name senior civil servants and politicians.
The source said: “If Simon Case had been fined it would have made his position much weaker but as he is effectively Gray’s boss, it makes things more tricky for her.”
On Jan 31, Ms Gray published an “update” into her findings, which included broad-brush but fierce criticism of social gatherings during lockdowns inside government buildings.
The police investigation brought new disclosures about the scale of law-breaking in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office as well as details about how officers had approached their inquiries. Of those fined, 28 received multiple penalties, with some getting five.
The investigation, called Operation Hillman, saw a dozen detectives comb through 345 documents, 510 photographs and CCTV images, and 204 questionnaires. Covid law breaches were found at each of the eight dates the Met was investigating.
The Met has refused to name those who were fined, despite legally being allowed to.
Mr Johnson, Mrs Johnson and Mr Sunak were all fined for the same event – a birthday gathering for the Prime Minister on June 19, 2020.
Other events that the Prime Minister attended which involved more widespread drinking of alcohol, according to witnesses, did not lead to further fines.
A Number 10 source said yesterday: “It’s good it’s over. Hopefully, it allows us to move on and focus on the public’s priorities.”
Scores of Tory MPS have long pointed to the publication of the Gray report as the moment when they will reach a conclusion about Mr Johnson’s future.
Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, faces an investigation by Durham police into whether he broke Covid laws when having a beer and curry with aides during the 2021 local election campaign.
THE acting commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has been criticised for continuing to oversee a policy which keeps the identities of partygate offenders a secret to protect their privacy.
Sir Stephen House has been accused of failing to put “clear water” between him and his predecessor, Dame Cressida Dick, on the issue of transparency surrounding the investigation.
Police previously said they were looking into 12 events over eight dates. But yesterday, when the operation was brought to a close, the force would only disclose that an unknown number of events were found to have breached regulations and 126 fines were issued.
It was reported last night that Mr Johnson was only investigated for two of the four events he was known to have attended. The Mirror claims the Prime Minister was only investigated for incidents where there are photographs of him, his surprise birthday party on Jun 19 2020 and the so-called “Abba party” on Nov 13 2020.
Nazir Afzal, the former chief prosecutor for North West England said the outcome had “merely confused” the British public further. “Stephen House had an opportunity with this to put clear water between him and Cressida but has failed,” he said. “The lack of transparency has compounded the perception that the Met Police have been less than rational in their decision making.
“We’re left with the ridiculous conclusion that the Prime Minister ‘legally’ attended ‘illegal’ events. We know nothing of the reasoning behind the decisions.
“We do not know what culpability, if any, for example, the most senior civil servant in the land, Simon Case has. We do not know whether the police on duty in Downing Street were aware and told to turn a blind eye, and by whom. We do not know why more serious offences such as ‘misconduct in public office’ weren’t considered or, if they were, why
‘Stephen House had an opportunity with this to put clear water between him and Cressida but has failed’
they haven’t been charged.”
Events under investigation included an online Christmas quiz in the Cabinet Office and a leaving party for Kate Josephs, the outgoing head of the civil service Covid taskforce.
But in its latest announcement, the Met would not confirm which events broke the rules and which did not.
This is the second transparency row the Met has faced after it was accused of hiding behind privacy rules introduced in the wake of the Leveson inquiry.
In March, when the first set of fines were issued, the force refused to identify any individuals who receive them, claiming that to do so would be a breach of a nationally approved policy.
But the College of Policing, which wrote the policy, insisted the rules were meant only as guidance.
The Met said its investigation was “thorough and impartial”.