Well Johnson

[JonathanM]

He didn't say 'it wasn't a party', he said 'I didn't attend any parties'. This was in parliament, in other words, he lied to the house and has since made no attempt at a correction to his comments.

But one follows from the other. Somebody would point out that Sunak received a FPN for the Johnson birthday event, and that therefore he must have been lying when he said he didn't attend any parties. Sunak would simply say "that wasn't a party" and therefore would maintain that he hadn't lied. Remember, the sort of parties he was being asked about, in that Commons question, were the ones in number 10, where people brought in a suitcase full of booze, partied until dawn and threw up in the cupboard. I'm more than happy for him to be referred to the Committee. But I think it would be very easy for him to get out of this.

If a defendant or lawyer referred to any judge as a kangaroo court, s/he would be held in contempt. That's just how it works. You're not allowed to undermine the process, even if you disagree with it. If you watch legal dramas like I do, this is often made very clear. He also leaked the findings of the Committee. And his surrogates are threatening deselections and other punishments. These actions are unheard of. I don't think anyone who supports the rule of law could accept that these behaviours can go unpunished.

We have very little information about the Bernard Jenkin affair. It could well be that it was a normal work meeting, but because it was somebody's birthday, they had a cake rather than biscuits, and a glass of wine rather than a cup of tea. They claim that numbers were restricted and social distancing was complied with and that Jenkin only popped in right at the end to collect his wife. I'm more than happy for this to be referred as well. I wouldn't just take Guido's word on all of this, though. It has all the hallmarks of a typical Johnson smear.

Johnson was forced out for something to do with supporting a sex pest, I can't remember exactly.

I actually suggested a nine day suspension at one point.

Do you understand that the rules this Committee worked to were almost identical to previous Committees? I would really like you to answer that, because if this is a kangaroo court, then are you saying that all previous Committees were also kangaroo courts.

There were, however, two differences. I'm still interested in your take on the intentionality thing and why that is so important. As far as I can see it was really just a technical change. He still couldn't be sanctioned for lying inadvertently. The other change was that they lowered the burden of proof from at least two previous cases, but there is a complex discussion in an earlier report of why this was done, something to do with changes in the wider legal system, I didn't understand it all. But in other respects, this Committee worked exactly as it had in all previous such cases. Also, these two changes were advised by Sir Ernest Ryder, a very senior judge, to reflect modern practice.

 

[Brigadier]

As amended from 'intentionally' lied to Parliament.

He didn't.
The End.

useful idiot

 

[noseall]

He didn't.

Unsurprisingly, folk don't believe you or (massive liar) Boris.

 

[JohnD]

Filly is not a useful one.

 

[Deleted member 174758]

As amended from 'intentionally' lied to Parliament.

He didn't.
The End.

B@ll@x.
He did
And you must be delusional to think otherwise

Then there's the not so little matter of Johnson's treasonable behaviour. That might warrant a police and security services investigation. If he ends up going inside for treason, will you still support him then?

Probably

 

[JonathanM]

he called the kangaroo court a kangaroo court, can anyone in their right mind deny that's not the case.

I would say that anyone who takes the time to read, and try to understand the process, would conclude that it was definitely not a kangaroo court. Admittedly this is complex stuff. But I've found it very interesting and have really been enjoying looking into it.

In 2022, a very senior judge, Sir Ernest Ryder, was asked to undertake a review of fairness and natural justice within the House of Commons standards system. He made various recommendations to improve it and bring it up to date. These recommendations were adopted by the Committee investigating Johnson. The important point here is that the Committee didn't invent a new procedure, specifically for Johnson. Instead, they took the old procedure and, where appropriate, updated it to reflect the recommendations in the review commissioned by the House of Commons. Further, because this was such an important case, the Committee employed Sir Ernest themselves, to further advise on fairness.

One of the recommendations in the judge's review, related to the required standard of proof. In a couple of prior cases, House of Commons Committees had invented a new standard of proof, somewhere between the civil standard and the criminal standard. This was known as the "civil sliding scale". He essentially said this was now a discredited practice, having no place in British law, and that the standard to be used should be the civil standard. As most people know, the civil burden of proof is "more likely than not" or more commonly called "on the balance of probabilities". However, supporters of Johnson pounced on this, claiming it was a reduction in the burden of proof, and used it as a reason to label the Committee a kangaroo court. If they took the time to understand it, they would realise it was no such thing. But I am not holding my breath!

There is an interesting discussion here in this law blog, from 2006, about the sliding scale, and its application to professional tribunals.

Two standards or three?

There has in recent years been an occasional but noticeable tendency to refer to an apparent third standard, the so-called "civil sliding scale ". This is a complex issue meriting a more detailed discussion, which we will address in a forthcoming edition of this e-bulletin. For present purposes however, it should suffice to highlight that there is in fact no third standard of proof as such. The concept of the 'sliding scale' is derived from a number of well-known judicial statements and simply refers to the amount of evidence which will be required in any given case. There remain just two standards of proof: the higher (criminal) standard and the civil standard (balance of probabilities).

The Standard of Proof | Shepherd and Wedderburn

The standard of proof applied by a disciplinary tribunal or panel can be a source of confusion and has been a cause of ongoing debate in the context of professional discipline and regulation. This is particularly the case where the disciplinary scheme in question does not specifically state the...

shepwedd.com

 

[ellal]

Gove has just said that the Tory HQ Partygate video was“terrible and “indefensible”...

But he insisted that "Bailey and Mallett should keep their honours from Johnson, despite this video emerging of them breaking lockdown rules during the pandemic"

Furthermore...

"He tried to maintain that Boris Johnson had genuinely believed that he had had assurances that no rules were broken in Downing Street, while also praising the work of the Privileges Committee. You might think, having your cake and eating it, perhaps. Mr Gove said he’ll abstain if there is a vote"

And they wonder why faith in politics has been lost!

 

[JohnD]

The nation and the Prime Minister became an international laughing stock.

Remember his underlings laughing and joking as they tried to invent lies to cover up for him?

Tory MPs were annoyed the vid had got out.
But not that they had chosen a worthless "leader"

 

[Notch7]

I would say that anyone who takes the time to read, and try to understand the process, would conclude that it was definitely not a kangaroo court. Admittedly this is complex stuff. But I've found it very interesting and have really been enjoying looking into it.

In 2022, a very senior judge, Sir Ernest Ryder, was asked to undertake a review of fairness and natural justice within the House of Commons standards system. He made various recommendations to improve it and bring it up to date. These recommendations were adopted by the Committee investigating Johnson. The important point here is that the Committee didn't invent a new procedure, specifically for Johnson. Instead, they took the old procedure and, where appropriate, updated it to reflect the recommendations in the review commissioned by the House of Commons. Further, because this was such an important case, the Committee employed Sir Ernest themselves, to further advise on fairness.

One of the recommendations in the judge's review, related to the required standard of proof. In a couple of prior cases, House of Commons Committees had invented a new standard of proof, somewhere between the civil standard and the criminal standard. This was known as the "civil sliding scale". He essentially said this was now a discredited practice, having no place in British law, and that the standard to be used should be the civil standard. As most people know, the civil burden of proof is "more likely than not" or more commonly called "on the balance of probabilities". However, supporters of Johnson pounced on this, claiming it was a reduction in the burden of proof, and used it as a reason to label the Committee a kangaroo court. If they took the time to understand it, they would realise it was no such thing. But I am not holding my breath!

There is an interesting discussion here in this law blog, from 2006, about the sliding scale, and its application to professional tribunals.

The Standard of Proof | Shepherd and Wedderburn

The standard of proof applied by a disciplinary tribunal or panel can be a source of confusion and has been a cause of ongoing debate in the context of professional discipline and regulation. This is particularly the case where the disciplinary scheme in question does not specifically state the...

shepwedd.com

Very interesting, thks for posting

 

[fillyboy]

Very interesting, thks for posting

And without hurling insults, an approach others, including myself might benefit from.

 

[JonathanM]

And without hurling insults, an approach others, including myself might benefit from.

There is still the issue about the definition of misleading the House, and at what point the Committee was required to consider whether any misleading needed to be intentional or not. The to and fro between the Committee and Johnson's lawyers is very complex and I can't say I've totally got my head around it. As far as I can tell, the Committee were saying that, in the end the process worked out the same as before, but that they were advised by the "Clerk of the Journals" (who??) to approach it in a different way (by making their findings in a different sequence to that used in some previous cases). The upshot is still the same, in that Johnson definitely couldn't be punished for inadvertently misleading. But I'm not clear, yet, whether he could still have been found in contempt (but without punishment) for inadvertently misleading.

 

[fillyboy]

Govey strikes the right note imo.

 

[JohnD]

Gove wants to preserve his future reputation by avoiding giving support to a notorious lying toad

 

[fillyboy]

Gove wants to preserve his future reputation by avoiding giving support to a notorious lying toad

Few politicians are ever prepared to put their head on the block. Johnson might be the obvious exception. Gove is clever, praises the report but disagrees with the conclusion and sanctions.

 

[JonathanM]

Has anyone read this story? It was the Mail headline on the Sky newspaper review, but there's no trace of it on the Mail website.

EDIT: It's here:

Proof Boris Johnson's accuser DID go to party in lockdown

Sir Bernard Jenkin's defence that he was attending a work event is torpedoed by an invitation sent out by his wife, the Tory peer Anne Jenkin, which The Mail on Sunday can reveal today.

www.dailymail.co.uk