2/ In terms of the legal framework, this has been explored by a number of good lawyers and I won’t repeat that material here (since I suspect that this is rather more a political, than a legal commentary).
3/ On the question of #partygate, I think that the real issue for the PM is his early efforts to suggest that nothing had happened: that all the *guidance* (which was even stricter than the law) had been followed. Personally, I don’t think he should have to go for receiving a FPN
4/ The precedents do not support the idea that a Minister who commits a minor breach of the law should have to resign (see e.g. Baroness Scotland, Harriet Harman, etc.) However, that’s not the end of the matter…
5/ To my mind, the real issue around the Johnson case is whether he intentionally misled Parliament. That is a resignation issue. To be frank, after the initial Sue Gray report it was evident to everyone that the guidance hadn’t been followed.
6/ It will be for the @HoCPrivileges to determine the extent of the PM’s knowledge. To my mind, at the point Sue Gray’s initial report was published, he should have clarified the record and acknowledged that he inadvertently misled the House (if that is what truly happened).
7/ As for #beergate - I am completely indifferent to whether Starmer had a curry and a beer after a work event.
If it is demonstrated that it was illegal at the time, it just shows the stupidity of rules (which would have allowed him to spend the day working with these people).
8/Starmer’s difficulty is that, if he is eventually issued a FPN, he will be guilty of something rather worse than a minor offence: he will be guilty of abject hypocrisy.
9/ As always, with these sorts of issues, it seems that it is the denials and failure to admit what may have ultimately been minor mistakes or breaches of the rules, which have led to real crisis and anger amongst the public.
This is something we can all reflect upon. Often, in these sorts of situations, an honest apology and straightforward acceptance of events is the far better option. /ends
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Last time the Attorney General gave public legal advice on the Northern Ireland Protocol, during the passage of the Internal Market Bill, I was advising the @LordsEUCom
The Committee put out an excoriating report noting that her advice was “clearly wrong in law”…
I haven’t seen the new advice and so cannot comment on its accuracy. But I would be very surprised if the underlying issues have changed very much. This still sounds like the U.K. wishing to use its domestic law to breach an international agreement which it signed in good faith.
I see there is an interesting discussion between @BarristerSecret and @SBarrettBar about whether the PM might be found to have misled Parliament. In case it is of any interest, here are my thoughts on the matter. (Short 🧵)
/1.
First, many commentators are citing the Ministerial Code. But, in this instance, Parliament has its own resolution on Ministerial Accountability to Parliament. The details can be found in Erskine May: erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4569/m…
In short, it reads: “Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister.” In this instance, I’d read that as meaning that the PM should offer his resignation to the Queen (others may disagree). /3
Overnight, it was drawn to my attention that Jolyon Maughan, the head of the @GoodLawProject had criticised an article on crowdfunding that I published in @prospect_uk, I am told he accused me of "weird personal score-settling". I found this rather surprising and disappointing…
As far as I am aware, I have never met Mr Maugham. Nor have I ever been involved in a case in which we were opponents. Indeed, for the bulk of my legal career I worked as an impartial official in the UK Parliament, dealing with human rights, EU law and international law…
I believe that the only significant interaction I have ever had with him was when I once informed him that one of his proposed JR’s couldn’t be pursued because it fell foul of Art IX of the Bill of Rights. That claim was never issued…
The Judicial Review and Courts Bill is back in the Commons tomorrow. In my latest piece for @prospect_uk
I consider something that isn’t being addressed, but arguable should be: crowdfunding judicial reviews and strategic litigation (short 🧵). prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/why-c…
/1
Crowdfunding is often associated with the @GoodLawProject
But it has become a much more common way of funding litigation and is used by many other groups (I declare an interest as my own firm has used it). Yet there are clearly risks involved for both lawyers and funders. /2
In my article, which relies on part on some excellent research conducted by @JoePTomlinson, I suggest that the time is right to consider regulating the use of crowdfunding... /3
I started reading this with an open mind. But I’m afraid that there is an egregious error in the first section. @RobertBuckland asserts that the prisoner voting case (Hirst v U.K.) was wrongly decided on the basis of the travaux préparatoires for the ECHR. (Short 🧵)
This is an argument I’ve heard before. I think it may first have been raised by @DominicRaab
The problem is that it simply isn’t correct… /2
The reason that the drafters of the ECHR didn’t introduce a universal right to vote (as opposed to a right to free and fair elections) is most likely due to concerns about whether it might be extended to citizens’ in the (then) existing colonies. /3
I’ve previously hesitated to comment much on the Johnson #PartyGate allegations on the basis that I’m not an expert on the Covid rules in place at the time. However, I’m surprised that the debate on Twitter has turned to the seriousness of any fixed-penalty notices. Short🧵/1
A number of Ministers from various political parties have been issued with fixed penalty notices (FPN) for breaches of the criminal law and have not resigned - including a former Attorney General who was fined £5k for employing an illegal housekeeper /2
While it is not precisely on point, Parliament itself has set out new rules for the recall of MPs. FPNs don’t seem to meet the threshold for recall.../3