Yes, all evidence has been disclosed to Mr Johnson – see above (Question 6).
10. Has the Committee taken anonymous evidence? Why has it redacted some documents?
No, the Committee has neither received nor relied upon any anonymous evidence.
In its report on procedure published in July 2022 the Committee, in the interests of setting out all options, raised the possibility that “whistle-blowing” evidence might be taken anonymously with the identity of the witness not disclosed to Mr Johnson. In the event it has not withheld from Mr Johnson the identity of any witness. All evidence and the identity of those submitting it has been disclosed to Mr Johnson.
The Committee received a great deal of documentation in this inquiry. In accordance with best practice, it has published only material accepted as relevant evidence and on which either the Committee or Mr Johnson has sought to rely. Some of this material has been redacted, with Mr Johnson’s approval, to remove the identifying details of, e.g., junior civil servants.
11. Why has the Committee not published all the evidence it has received?
See previous answer.
12. Why has the Committee not published its correspondence with Mr Johnson?
The Committee has published some, but not all, of this correspondence.
Mr Johnson’s lawyers have engaged in extensive correspondence with the Committee, much of it concerning administrative matters or issues of timing. That correspondence does not constitute evidence. The Committee’s practice is to put into the public domain only evidence or other material which it is necessary to publish for the purposes of the inquiry. For that reason it published an exchange between the Chair and Mr Johnson’s lawyers on the day of the 22 May 2023 hearing, and is publishing with this report a letter from Mr Johnson sent to individual Committee members shortly after the hearing (see Appendix 2).
13. Did the Committee prejudge the issues when it published its Fourth Report?
No, the Committee was responding to a request from Mr Johnson’s own lawyers to set out the principal issues arising out of the evidence that he would have to answer when he gave oral evidence.
14. Was Mr Johnson subject to “highly partisan cross-examination” on 22 March 2023?
No. The purpose of questioning a witness in oral evidence is to test the strengths and weaknesses of their evidence. Posing challenging questions, with ample opportunity given for the witness to reply, is not only legitimate but essential.
15. Was Mr Johnson allowed legal advice?
Yes. The Committee’s Resolution on Procedure specifically provided for such legal (or other) advice and specified that any witness could be accompanied at evidence session by such advisers and to take advice during those sessions. Legal advisers are not permitted to address a select committee (see below)
