Share this page!

George Peretz QC Profile picture
Twitter logo
Feb 15 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
Implausible. The questions are whether Johnson participated in the gathering, and whether the gathering was reasonably necessary for work purposes.
It doesn’t matter whether Johnson believed before turning up that it was a “work event” (or reasonably necessary for work purposes) or if the event was sprung on him (ambushed by cake).
Once he saw bottles of wine and signs of a party, or saw that people were singing birthday songs and eat cake, it is hard to see how he could have believed the event was reasonably necessary for work purposes.
Since (on his own admission) he stayed on for 25/up to 10 minutes, it’s hard to see how he didn’t commit the offence.
In any event, it is impossible to see how, having attended these events (and apparently been in his flat during another gathering), he could ever have believed that what he told the HoC on 1.12.21 was true. Image
And, quite.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with George Peretz QC

George Peretz QC Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GeorgePeretzQC

George Peretz QC Profile picture
Feb 17
This is confused. Neighbouring developed countries with huge trade/personal links usually do have a “special relationship” (involving elements of common trade regulation, generous mobility provisions etc) while fully respecting each other’s sovereignty.
See Australia/NZ for an obvious example.
Nor are such arrangements incompatible with maintaining “global interests”, as Frost asserts.
Read 6 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
Feb 16
A couple of comments on this piece by @SBarrettBar.
To start, it isn’t particularly helpful - as Steve does - to conflate questions of standing in public law with questions of title to sue in private law.
In private law these are typically hard-edged (only the victim of a tort can sue on it; generally, subject to a statutory exception, only the parties to a contract can sue on it, etc).
Read 22 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
Feb 15
I think there are issues here. You can make your own mind up on the details but I have two main worries (not necessarily about this case - which I haven’t yet read - but more generally).
1. There is a tendency on both sides of the debate on the so-called (ab)use of judicial review for political ends to exaggerate what JR can actually do.
That lies behind some of the sillier stuff coming out of the so-called Judicial Power Project, exaggerating “judicial power”.
Read 8 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
Feb 14
This is unlikely to work. The rules varied, but if we look at June 2020 (the “ambushed by cake” birthday sing-song, that Johnson admits attending for up to 10 minutes), the rule was that it was generally unlawful to participate in a “gathering” with people from another household.
An exception was where the gathering was “reasonably necessary for work purposes”.
So the test wasn’t “is the purpose work-related” (saying good-bye to a colleague; cheering everyone up with a birthday sing-song and cake); it was “is the gathering reasonably *necessary* for work”.
Read 5 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
Feb 13
Good reminder that (shades of Watergate and many other career-ending scandals) the issue of whether Johnson deliberately misled the HoC in the cover-up is at the heart of the matter.
I’d add that I cannot see how this particular claim on 1/12/21 - given his already admitted participation in and hence knowledge of some of the “gatherings” (the key concept) - could have been anything other than deliberately misleading. Image
As Alexander says, the constitutional position when Ministers deliberately mislead the HoC is quite clear. They have to resign.
Read 11 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
Feb 12
Basic constitutional law: we elect a House of Commons, not a PM. It is the HoC that has a mandate, not the PM.
NB too that Nixon - who really did have a personal mandate - also believed that it trumped the criminal law. He was wrong.
That is because, in a democracy, no personal mandate is ever unconditional: it comes with strings, one of which is complying with the law.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @GeorgePeretzQC has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @GeorgePeretzQC!

Read all threads by @GeorgePeretzQC

:(