14. Five of the six events we have focussed on had the core purpose of thanking staff who had been working hard, or raising morale following the departure of staff. Mr Johnson, when asked whether he would have condoned gatherings for this purpose in other organisations, declined to say that he would. As we concluded in paragraphs 37 and 65 above, in view of Mr Johnson’s repeated exhortations to the public to follow the Rules and Guidance, indicating the importance he attached to their being taken seriously, we do not believe that, if asked at the time whether unsocially distanced “leaving dos” to maintain staff morale were permitted under the Rules and Guidance, he would have advised the British public that they were. (Paragraph 113)
15.In respect of the sixth event, the gathering to celebrate his birthday on 19 June 2020, while we have no reason to think that the meeting that followed this event was anything other than a necessary work meeting, Mr Johnson was unable to provide a convincing reason why this prior gathering was “reasonably necessary for work purposes”. (Paragraph 114)
16. With regard to the Guidance, there was no obvious social distancing at any of the events for which the Committee has photographs, and we have direct evidence about the lack of social distancing from witnesses. We have no evidence of substantive mitigations in place in the rooms or areas where the gatherings took place (save the 20 May 2020 gathering in the garden because it was open air). The mitigations described by Mr Johnson do not relate to the activities complained of. At best they are such marginal expedients as not touching pens or passing things to each other, except of course alcohol. (Paragraph 115)
17. Mr Johnson concedes that social distancing was not possible at these events but maintains the Guidance was complied with “completely”. That is not correct. Mr Johnson refers to social distancing of less than 2 metres as “imperfect” social distancing. This term is not in the Guidance. Without all possible efforts being made to redesign the event, to allow for social distancing of at least 1-metre with substantive mitigations, is non-compliance. This inability to maintain full social distancing would have brought into operation the clause in the Guidance relating to considering whether, in these circumstances, the event should take place at all. We conclude that Mr Johnson’s persistence in putting forward this unsustainable interpretation of the Guidance is both disingenuous and a retrospective contrivance to mislead the House and this Committee. (Paragraph 116)
18. We think it highly unlikely on the balance of probabilities that Mr Johnson, in the light of his cumulative direct personal experience of these events, and his familiarity with the Rules and Guidance as their most prominent public promoter, could have genuinely believed at the time of his statements to the House that the Rules or Guidance were being complied with. We think it just as unlikely he could have continued to believe this at the time of his evidence to our Committee. We conclude that when he told the House and this Committee that the Rules and Guidance were being complied with, his own knowledge was such that he deliberately misled the House and this Committee. (Paragraph 117)
