Privileges Committee rejects Lord Pannick criticisms
The House of Commons Committee of Privileges, which is currently investigating the conduct of Boris Johnson as prime minister, has rejected the legal opinion of Lord Pannick who criticised its inquiry. The seven-member committee of senior MPs released a special report describing the view set out by Pannick as “founded on a systemic misunderstanding of the parliamentary process and misplaced analogies with the criminal law”.
The Privileges Committee said it dismissed the opinion of Pannick and Jason Pobjoy, commissioned by the government and published in the final days of the Johnson administration, on the basis of “impartial advice” from Clerks of the House, the Office of Speaker’s Counsel and its own legal adviser.
The key disagreement is over whether MPs should be punished for misleading the House even when it is unintentional, with Pannick arguing this would have a “chilling effect”. The committee said this concern was “wholly misplaced and itself misleading”.
Pannick also asserted that the committee should allow Johnson to be represented by counsel who would speak on his behalf and cross-examine witnesses. The MPs replied that this atypical arrangement would require a decision by the Commons.
In April, MPs passed a Labour motion calling for Johnson to be subject to a probe by the cross-party committee for having potentially committed a contempt of Parliament by misleading it over “partygate”.
When accused of hosting parties in Downing Street that contravened Covid laws, Johnson told the Commons in December 2021 that “all guidance was followed”. The Metropolitan Police later issued more than 100 fines for illegal gatherings in Downing Street.
If the Privileges Committee finds that Johnson’s conduct constituted contempt of Parliament, it could recommend sanctions including suspension from the Commons. If Johnson were suspended for 10 sitting days, a recall petition would be triggered in his Uxbridge constituency.