considered might have evidence which would be helpful to him. Mr Johnson was given time to make further written submissions. We have taken great care over the publication of the material in this inquiry, since it contains details about many junior civil servants and others which, though disclosed to Mr Johnson, does not need to be released publicly.
221. Mr Johnson’s incorrect assertion that the Committee’s powers are new, and its procedures unfair, is a continuation of a pattern of statements which are bald expressions of opinion without justification.
222. At the time we wrote to Mr Johnson, we had come to no final conclusions, since we awaited his response. In making his statement when he did, Mr Johnson knew that the Committee would be unable to make a substantive response until it had completed its inquiry, and his assertions would be unchallenged. We note that Mr Johnson does not merely criticise the fairness of the Committee’s procedures; he also attacks in very strong, indeed vitriolic, terms the integrity, honesty and honour of its members. He stated that the Committee had “forced him out […] anti-democratically”. This attack on a committee carrying out its remit from the democratically elected House itself amounts to an attack on our democratic institutions. We consider that these statements are completely unacceptable. In our view this conduct, together with the egregious breach of confidentiality, is a serious further contempt.
223. We further note that these latest developments cast a new light on some of Mr Johnson’s previous comments and behaviour. We draw attention in paragraph 15 above to the attacks mounted on the Committee in the media, and by some politicians, during the course of the inquiry, couched in terms of personal abuse of the Committee’s members. In public Mr Johnson held himself aloof from these attacks. When we questioned him about the attacks in the oral evidence session, he told us that he deprecated the use of language such as “kangaroo courts” and “witch hunts”. A matter of days after the evidence session, on 30 March 2023, Mr Johnson wrote to each individual member of the Committee. In his letter, which we print as Appendix 2 to this report, Mr Johnson stated:
At the end of the session, Sir Charles and Mr Costa asked me a series of questions regarding comments that have been made about the Committee’s work being a “witch hunt” or a “kangaroo court”. Having reviewed the transcript, I am concerned that, at the end of what had been a long hearing, I was not emphatic enough in the answers that I provided. As I hope I made clear in those answers, I have the utmost respect for the integrity of the Committee and all its Members and the work that it is doing.
224. Notwithstanding his protestations of respect for the Committee, and his earlier deprecation of language such as “kangaroo courts” and “witch hunts”, we note that in his statement of 9 June Mr Johnson himself used precisely those abusive terms to describe the Committee. This leaves us in no doubt that he was insincere in his attempts to distance himself from the campaign of abuse and intimidation of committee members. This in our view constitutes a further significant contempt.
225. Nevertheless, on Sunday 11 June, at 6.59 pm, Mr Johnson’s lawyers contacted the Clerk of the Committee with the following message:
I can confirm that Mr Johnson will be responding to the warning letter by 22 June 2023 in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Resolution on
