,
20 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
A few choice extracts from Boris Johnson's Skeleton Argument. THREAD 
Boris Johnson denies that he acted improperly or dishonestly in relation to the £350m figure. Public debate on the issue continues to this day, he says citing Iain Duncan Smith. /1
This is the core of his argument as to why the summons is unlawful: there is a difference between acting *as* a public official and acting *while* a public official. /2
Boris Johnson offers up the analogy of a senior civil servant who is also a shoplifter. The offence would not bite. /3
The Skeleton draws a distinction between abuse of the status that comes from being a public officer and the abuse of the office. As I read Boris Johnson's Skeleton it argues it is unlikely anyone would trust what he says. /4
The Skeleton makes a point about what are said to be the arbitrary consequences that would ensue if the offence applied as Marcus Ball suggests. /5
It notes that Parliament has legislated to create certain offences for false campaign statements. /6
It makes the point that (outside a narrow class of case) Parliament trusted the electorate to be the jury in cases involving arguably false statements by campaigners. /7
This is the heart of the legal case that the challenge is vexatious. /8
And these are the factual matters relied upon, in particular, by Boris Johnson to establish that it is vexatious. /9
The Skeleton advances some a number of points about the intended political effects of the prosecution. /10
I don't have a copy of Mr Ball's Skeleton, unfortunately. Happy to tweet out extracts if someone wants to send it to me. /ENDS
A kindly soul has just sent me a copy of Marcus Ball's Skeleton so here are some extracts from that Skeleton. /BEGINSAGAIN
The Skeleton notes that the bar for issuing the summons is a low one. /1
It contends there is ample material to support the contention that the statements were made "in the course of or in relation to his public office." /2
It also contends that the offence is broader than Mr Johnson admits. /3
Mr Ball contends that the conduct of Mr Johnson is not just the presentation of political arguments which are "objectionable, misleading or even plain wrong" but are "far more serious than that". /4
Mr Ball responds to the suggestion that the prosecution is vexatious. /5
And adds that it can't plausibly be suggested that undermining Brexit is the only motivation for the prosecution and mixed motivations are very common in private prosecutions. /6
Appearing for Mr Ball in the Judicial Review, Jason Coppel QC and Anthony Eskander. /ENDS.
