evidence to be accompanied by a statement of truth, providing material to Mr Johnson and giving him time to make submissions before coming to a provisional conclusion, which was itself shared with Mr Johnson so that he could make further submissions.
5. Has the Committee kept within its terms of reference?
Yes. The Committee has only dealt with issues referred to it by the House. The Committee did not in any way alter the definition of contempt.
6. Has Mr Johnson “no formal ability to challenge anything they [the Committee] say”?
That is not correct. The rules are designed to enable the person inquired into to know the allegations and to respond so that the Committee can take that into account. The Committee wrote to Mr Johnson inviting an initial written submission on 21 July 2022. No initial written submission was received in response to this invitation. At his lawyers’ request and in order to be fair to Mr Johnson the Committee published, in its Fourth Report on 3 March 2023, the principal issues that the Committee sought to raise with him in oral evidence. The Committee also disclosed all the material it had received (unredacted) to Mr Johnson, not just the evidence it sought to rely on. Mr Johnson gave oral evidence on 22 March in relation to the contents of the Fourth Report. Shortly before the evidence session he submitted written evidence, and he subsequently made further written submissions. Mr Johnson was sent in confidence a warning letter together with relevant provisional conclusions including on sanction on Thursday 9 June 2023, and was invited to make a further submission on those provisional findings. If Mr Johnson had remained a Member of the House he would have been able to make any further points he wished directly to the House, before any decision on sanction.
7. Has the Committee relied on the Sue Gray report?
No. The Committee does not rely on the Sue Gray report or on the notes compiled in preparing it for its evidence. Where the notes, to which the Committee had access, suggested an individual might have evidence relevant to the inquiry, the Committee asked for evidence directly from that individual, accompanied by a statement of truth.
8. Has the Committee been on ‘fishing expeditions’?
No. The Committee sought only those documents which were relevant and approached only those witnesses who were relevant or who the notes of the Sue Gray report indicated might have relevant information. On request from Mr Johnson, the Committee also approached specific people to ask about points raised by Mr Johnson or on matters which might have been favourable to him.
On 18 May 2023 the Government supplied us with new evidence relating to 16 gatherings at No. 10 and at Chequers, assessed by the Government Legal Department as being events/ activities “which could reasonably be considered to constitute breaches of Covid Regulations”. Mr Johnson has provided, under a statement of truth, explanations of the 16 events referred to. We have no evidence conflicting with his account. We do not wish to incur the further delay to our inquiry that would result from a detailed investigation of these events, and therefore we treat Mr Johnson’s explanations as prima facie accurate.
