Met decided leaving bash was a work event
Acting Commissioner tells London Assembly ‘we deal with the law, not what looks bad’
THE Acting Met Commissioner has indicated the reason the Prime Minister escaped a fine for attending the Lee Cain leaving party was because police considered it a work event.
Sir Stephen House said he had personally been involved in the partygate decisions and he did not believe Boris Johnson had breached the law numerous times. Appearing before the London Assembly police and crime committee, Sir Stephen insisted he was confident of the integrity of the investigation.
Scotland Yard came under intense pressure to explain why Mr Johnson was not given a fixed penalty notice (FPN) when photographs emerged showing him raising a toast at a gathering to mark the departure of Lee Cain, his director of communications on Nov 13, 2020.
The Met was also accused of lacking consistency over its decision to fine Mr Johnson for attending his surprise birthday party. At the time of Mr Cain’s leaving party the country was in the grip of a second national lockdown with the law “prohibiting indoor gatherings of two or more people except for permitted exemptions including where the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes”.
Sir Stephen said: “I accept that many of the photographs we are seeing look bad and Sue Gray’s report has dealt with that. We deal with the law, not what looks bad.” He said it had been a “complicated” and “detailed” investigation which had seen detectives examine hundreds of emails, electronic door logs, diary entries, witness statements, photographs, CCTV images and questionnaires. He said the presence of alcohol did not necessarily mean there had been a breach of the regulations.
He told the Assembly: “I was involved in these decision makings myself. I am very confident of the integrity of the decisions that were made in this investigation which was a difficult investigation.”
Explaining why some people had been fined and others had not, he said: “We looked at whether there was a prescribed exemption under the regulations for the gathering, including whether it was reasonably necessary for work purposes. Some gatherings we decided were not work related and some we decided were work related.”
While refusing to elaborate on specific cases, Sir Stephen’s explanation appeared to confirm that the Met had concluded the birthday party in June 2020 was not a work event, but the other gatherings – including the Lee Cain leaving parties – were.
However, Lord Macdonald, who served as Director of Public Prosecutions from 2003 to 2008, last night questioned why leaving events would be classified as reasonably necessary for work. He said: “It seems inappropriate to have a blanket definition of that sort. What about a leaving do where people get drunk, abuse the staff, vomit on the floor and start fights? It would seem to be more sensible to assess each event on its merits. Most people would probably not accept that heavy drinking is necessary for work.”
Lord Paddick, a former Met Deputy Assistant Commissioner, who is bringing a legal action against the police over its handling of partygate, said: “For me the evidence appears to be building up to suggest that the Met have done the minimum possible that they thought they could get away with.”
Stephen Kamlish, a leading criminal QC, said it was wrong for police to have classified Mr Johnson’s attendance at a leaving do as a work commitment.
Mr Kamlish said: “A leaving do is not the work of the office. There is no sensible description of a leaving do after work that can properly be described as work. It is a social event. It is not the business of that office.” He said police had made a “subjective” decision, but that it was the wrong one.
Marina Ahmed, a member of the London Assembly police and crime committee, said: “The public are finding it hard to understand how the photos that have recently emerged of the Prime Minister drinking at Number 10 with several others on 13th November 2020, could show a work event. If the Met Police have come to the conclusion that this was a work event and this is why they didn’t fine the Prime Minister in this case, they need to come out to confirm and clearly explain this”.
Sir Stephen told the committee the length of time someone had spent at the gathering was also a critical factor in deciding whether to issue an FPN, suggesting those who left events early were more likely to escape. However, a former senior Metropolitan Police officer said: “It is very strange. If one looks at just the pictures, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. If it looks like a party it is a party.
“My understanding from the legislation is I didn’t think there was a minimum time period. By any common sense definition that was a party – so it is quite hard to understand the logic.”
Asked if the Met had treated the Prime Minister more favourably in order to avoid him being forced to resign, Sir Stephen said: “I’m not that worried what politicians think of my views. I’m not particularly concerned about what the Prime Minister thinks. I do my job without fear or favour, as did the Met in this situation.”