Boris Johnson has commissioned legal advice from leading QC Lord Pannick in a last-ditch attempt to clear his name over MPs’ investigation into whether he misled parliament over Partygate.
The prime minister is said to have sanctioned the release of the legal advice from the top lawyer – who previously worked against Mr Johnson’s government during the historic Brexit cases in the Supreme Court.
The document reportedly criticises the privileges committee’s failure to make a clear distinction between whether Mr Johnson intentionally or unintentionally misled MPs by saying he was not aware of rule-breaking parties.
One No 10 source told The Times that Lord Pannick document, reportedly set to be published by the Cabinet Office, has argued this was “unfair” and would create an unhelpful precedent.
“Every day ministers go up to the dispatch box with no idea what they are going to be asked. If they make an honest mistake it is surely wrong that they could be held in contempt of parliament,” they said.
Culture secretary Nadine Dorries, Mr Johnson’s most loyal ally, told the Daily Mail: “This expert legal opinion shows that the inquiry was a biased, Kafkaesque witch-hunt – it should now be halted before it does any more damage.”
Labour MP Chris Bryant, the former committee chair who recused himself because of his criticism of Mr Johnson, responded by saying the “kangaroo court is the Daily Mail”, saying the overnight briefings about the legal advice was “very odd”.
He added: “Secondly, I think it’s very odd that the Cabinet Office seem to have commissioned this advice on behalf of a private individual, namely the prime minister – that seems a very odd way to behave.”
The Labour MP also said it would be “very odd” for Lord Pannick to attempt “to tell the House of Commons what to do”, suggesting the advice was “completely misleading or misjudged”.
It is not clear how Mr Johnson intends to use Lord Pannick’s legal advice, understood to question the committee’s terms of reference. No 10 has repeatedly said the PM will co-operate will the inquiry, set to begin in the autumn.
His allies have questioned whether he “deliberately” misled parliament during the Partygate saga. But his “intention” is not relevant in deciding whether he is in contempt, the committee has made clear.
The committee’s terms of reference state that whether the PM “deliberately” misled the House “may become one of the key issues of the inquiry”, but is not necessarily crucial is deciding whether he was in contempt of parliament.
A memo stated: “It is for the committee and the House to determine whether a contempt has occurred and the intention of the contemnor is not relevant to making that decision.”
Mr Johnson is said to be “deeply concerned” about the potential result of the investigation, with the prospect of a by-election in his Uxbridge constituency if he is found in contempt and punished by MPs.
Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has made clear that he could face a recall petition, which could trigger a by-election, if he is suspended by MPs at the conclusion of the inquiry.
For any recall petition to be successful it requires 10 per cent of registered voters in a constituency to sign the petition. The committee has suggested one could be set up in the “hypothetical” scenario that Mr Johnson is suspended for 10 days.
Tory MP Kevin Hollinrake said the privileges committee should look specifically at whether the PM “intentionally” misled the House, but should be allowed to get on and do its job without interference.
The Rishi Sunak ally said: “I think the key thing here is the word intentionally … Did the prime minister intentionally mislead the House? That’s what they should look at and, and they should be allowed to do their job.”
But Mr Byrant suggested on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme the definition of contempt was broader. “The question for the privileges committee is simple – did the prime minister mislead the House?
