Are People Really That Stupid …
Society & Culture1 min ago
Partygate Probe Is Flawed And Unfair…
… says lawyer advising Boris Johnson.
//Last month, the committee decided it would not have to prove Mr Johnson deliberately misled MPs to show he committed a "contempt of Parliament" by obstructing its work.
It made the decision after taking advice from a parliamentary official, who said intent was "not relevant" to deciding whether Mr Johnson broke the rules.
But Lord Pannick, the top lawyer hired by the government to examine the committee's approach, said the inquiry needs to establish "that Mr Johnson intended to mislead the House [of Commons] - that is that he knew that what he told the House was incorrect". //
https:/
How can 'intent' possibly be irrelevant? A swift and very convenient moving of the goalposts by the less than fragrant Ms Harman's committee. It stinks.
//Last month, the committee decided it would not have to prove Mr Johnson deliberately misled MPs to show he committed a "contempt of Parliament" by obstructing its work.
It made the decision after taking advice from a parliamentary official, who said intent was "not relevant" to deciding whether Mr Johnson broke the rules.
But Lord Pannick, the top lawyer hired by the government to examine the committee's approach, said the inquiry needs to establish "that Mr Johnson intended to mislead the House [of Commons] - that is that he knew that what he told the House was incorrect". //
https:/
How can 'intent' possibly be irrelevant? A swift and very convenient moving of the goalposts by the less than fragrant Ms Harman's committee. It stinks.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In december 2021 Catherine West asked him “ Will the prime minister tell the House whether there was a party in Downing Street on 13 November?” referring to 2020
johnson replied:
“ No - but I am sure that whatever happened, the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times."
there was a party in downing street on 13 November 2020 and Johnson has been photographed participating in it.
i suppose the reason they are not considering intent is because it is impossible to prove what was definitely going on in the prime minister’s head when he said those words… only he knows that, and he is naturally enough unlikely to say that he was lying through his teeth even if it’s quite obvious that he was. if they set that as the standard for proof then it will become impossible to prove that anyone ever misled parliament… and the rule will be a dead letter and unenforcable… i think that is a far more troubling precedent than the one Pannick talks about!
the whole problem could have been avoided very nicely if Boris Johnson had not behaved like he did… alas…
johnson replied:
“ No - but I am sure that whatever happened, the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times."
there was a party in downing street on 13 November 2020 and Johnson has been photographed participating in it.
i suppose the reason they are not considering intent is because it is impossible to prove what was definitely going on in the prime minister’s head when he said those words… only he knows that, and he is naturally enough unlikely to say that he was lying through his teeth even if it’s quite obvious that he was. if they set that as the standard for proof then it will become impossible to prove that anyone ever misled parliament… and the rule will be a dead letter and unenforcable… i think that is a far more troubling precedent than the one Pannick talks about!
the whole problem could have been avoided very nicely if Boris Johnson had not behaved like he did… alas…
A partial response here: https:/
I'd particularly like to draw attention to the part of my link above where Mark Elliott writes:
// A statement that unintentionally misleads the House, and which should not therefore be regarded as a contempt at the time of its utterance, may become a contempt should the Member in question later become aware of its falsity and fail to correct the record. The notion that the record must be corrected in such circumstances is uncontroversial ... //
As the Ministerial Code says, "...it is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity."
In this case, Johnson stated unequivocally, on several occasions, that there were no parties in Downing Street during Lockdown, or that such parties as there were broke no rules. I will happily accept that Johnson was sincere in believing this at the time that he said it. Still, it was wrong. And it seems a stretch to argue that only the preliminary release of the Sue Grey report was "the earliest opportunity" to correct the record.
As a separate matter, it is not Harman who has "mov[ed]the goalposts" -- the suggestion that intent is not relevant comes straight from a literal reading of Erskine May, which holds that merely if the "act or omission ... obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions", then it may be said to be contempt, and there is no mention of intent in that paragraph. Anyone who makes a genuine mistake should of course be, and always is, given an opportunity to correct the record. Hence why Erskine May goes on to say that "many acts which might be considered to be contempts are either overlooked by the House or resolved informally".
The question the Privileges Committee is then asking isn't narrowly about whether what Johnson initially said was misleading -- which is a good thing, because it clearly was, since he was wrong -- but rather a wider question, about what followed that initial (wrong) statement. Did Johnson correct the record at the earliest opportunity? If not, why not? Nor is this meant to be in the literal sense of the very next time he was in Parliament. In other words, the contempt wouldn't be due to being wrong in the first place, but in allowing the error to persist for longer than it could have.
The closing part of Mark Elliott's link is also interesting. Ultimately, the Privileges Committee process is one of the clearest possible examples of a "Proceeding in Parliament", that judges and Courts therefore cannot question. It's therefore simply wrong to apply legal standards to the Committee's work. I suspect that Lord Pannick knows this.
I'd particularly like to draw attention to the part of my link above where Mark Elliott writes:
// A statement that unintentionally misleads the House, and which should not therefore be regarded as a contempt at the time of its utterance, may become a contempt should the Member in question later become aware of its falsity and fail to correct the record. The notion that the record must be corrected in such circumstances is uncontroversial ... //
As the Ministerial Code says, "...it is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity."
In this case, Johnson stated unequivocally, on several occasions, that there were no parties in Downing Street during Lockdown, or that such parties as there were broke no rules. I will happily accept that Johnson was sincere in believing this at the time that he said it. Still, it was wrong. And it seems a stretch to argue that only the preliminary release of the Sue Grey report was "the earliest opportunity" to correct the record.
As a separate matter, it is not Harman who has "mov[ed]the goalposts" -- the suggestion that intent is not relevant comes straight from a literal reading of Erskine May, which holds that merely if the "act or omission ... obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions", then it may be said to be contempt, and there is no mention of intent in that paragraph. Anyone who makes a genuine mistake should of course be, and always is, given an opportunity to correct the record. Hence why Erskine May goes on to say that "many acts which might be considered to be contempts are either overlooked by the House or resolved informally".
The question the Privileges Committee is then asking isn't narrowly about whether what Johnson initially said was misleading -- which is a good thing, because it clearly was, since he was wrong -- but rather a wider question, about what followed that initial (wrong) statement. Did Johnson correct the record at the earliest opportunity? If not, why not? Nor is this meant to be in the literal sense of the very next time he was in Parliament. In other words, the contempt wouldn't be due to being wrong in the first place, but in allowing the error to persist for longer than it could have.
The closing part of Mark Elliott's link is also interesting. Ultimately, the Privileges Committee process is one of the clearest possible examples of a "Proceeding in Parliament", that judges and Courts therefore cannot question. It's therefore simply wrong to apply legal standards to the Committee's work. I suspect that Lord Pannick knows this.
Pannick has quite a celebrity client list: Shamima Begum, Gina Miller, Max Mosley and Philip Green.
Johnson told Parliament that no lock down rules were broken at the 6 parties he attended. He was subsequently ‘fined’ for contravening the rules. Is Pannick trying to claim the false statement was not deliberate. That Johnson inadvertently misled parliament ? Good luck with that one Pannick. Johnson wrote the rules and broadcast them to us in his nightly Covid briefings. Trying to claim ignorance of the law is an absurd defence.
Johnson told Parliament that no lock down rules were broken at the 6 parties he attended. He was subsequently ‘fined’ for contravening the rules. Is Pannick trying to claim the false statement was not deliberate. That Johnson inadvertently misled parliament ? Good luck with that one Pannick. Johnson wrote the rules and broadcast them to us in his nightly Covid briefings. Trying to claim ignorance of the law is an absurd defence.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
If You Protest You Must Be Mentally Ill.
News6 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.