The Partygate Scandal
The Scandal
Boris Johnson’s birthday took place on June 9, 2020, which coincided with England’s emergence from the first lockdown. Indoor social gatherings were still against the law, and groups up to six were only permitted to meet outside if they observed social distancing rules. Despite these stringent rules, Mr Johnson’s birthday may have had as many as 30 attendees inside the Cabinet Room. According to Caroline Slocock, the private secretary of previous Conservative prime ministers, this room was only used for work purposes, and she could not imagine it ever being used as a party room. While Mr Johnson was enjoying his 56th birthday cake, many English citizens adhered to the guidelines and didn’t see their loved ones. While others were being fined and prosecuted for organising and attending parties.
Boris Johnson is presented with a cake on a visit to a school in Hemel Hempstead on June 19 2020, the day of the birthday party © Andrew Parsons/10 Downing Street.
The Aftermath of the Scandal
a) The Internal Inquiry
Owing to immense pressure from the Labour party, Conservative backbenchers and the public’s frustration, Sue Gray, a senior civil servant, was appointed to investigate the so-called ‘partygate’ scandal. The investigation not only intended to investigate Mr Johnson’s birthday party but also other gatherings, such as the ‘bring your own booze’ garden party at Downing Street that took place while coronavirus restrictions were in place in May 2020. Under Gray’s terms of reference, if ‘any evidence emerges of behaviour that is potentially a criminal offence, the matter will be referred to the police’. Gray’s investigation seemed to have uncovered materials that would be in the interest of the police, giving reasonable grounds to suspect that criminal offences were committed. Therefore, the police were notified and consequently initiated an investigation.
Downing Street has repeatedly said it hopes to make Sue Gray's report public in full 'swiftly' after its completion © Peter Macdiarmid/LNP Street.
b) The Metropolitan Police Inquiry
The police investigation has recently begun, and it will take weeks (if not months) before it is concluded. However, it seemed the police had contradicted themselves by investigating the ‘partygate’ scandal. Since the Metropolitan Police had previously mentioned that they would not investigate retrospective rule-breaking. So why does this instance of rule-breaking differ from others?
Cressida Dick, Britain’s most senior police officer, provided two reasons in defence: (a) the police have a duty to get involved where the failure to do such would undermine the general support of the rule of law. As Dicey, the renowned constitutional theorist, famously stated, ‘every official, from the Prime Minister down to a constable or collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen’. This means that the circumvention of the rule of law by government officials pursuant to discretionary authority should not go unpunished. Moreover, (b) the police have a duty to get involved when there is clear evidence of breach and no evidence of viable defence of that breach. This suggests that if the Metropolitan Police had not investigated the matter and Sue Gray’s report was published, the Metropolitan Police’s position as an institution that upholds the law and reprimands those who do not adhere to it would have been undermined. Another significant factor in the Metropolitan Police investigation is the possibility of Boris Johnson being interviewed by the police, which would be conducted under caution. This means that he would be invited to a police station where his rights would be read to him. He would hear the infamous phrase ‘you have the right to remain silent’ and be interviewed as an alleged suspect in a crime. Tony Blair is the only other prime minister in history who has been interviewed by the police. However, he was interviewed as a witness and not as a suspect. Reports at the time suggested that Mr Blair would have resigned if he had been interviewed under caution. Regardless of Boris Johnson’s position as the prime minister, in the eye of the law, he is currently an alleged suspect in a crime and would undergo the same robust questioning that any other criminal suspect would face. This wouldn’t be pleasant – we all remember the infamous ‘Line of Duty’ interviews. Whether Boris Johnson would resign before being interviewed, or whether the interview would uncover evidence that would further damage Mr Johnson’s political career, remains shrouded in mystery.
c) The Metropolitan Police v. Sue Gray
At the time of this blog article’s publication, Sue Gray’s report might have already been published; however, the report ought to have been available last week. So, what caused the delay?
The Metropolitan Police made a statement last Thursday that the report should make only ‘minimal reference’ to the events the Metropolitan Police would be investigating. Therefore, Sue Gray’s report should be a redacted version to avoid any prejudice in the police investigation. Some politicians, especially the opposition, regarded this delay as a ‘get out of jail free card’ for Mr. Johnson, as the anger and frustration of the public would have dissipated upon the publication of Sue Gray’s report. In addition, the delay resulted in the report being published after the recent easing of lockdown rules, which might have worked favourably for Boris Johnson. Whether this was a matter of coincidence or an attempt to further distract the public’s attention from the ‘partygate’ scandal is unknown. However, some lawyers believe that the publication of Gray’s report could have hindered the police investigation because it may have influenced the recollections of suspects and witnesses and allowed them to tailor their versions of events before being interviewed by the police. Therefore, it was an appropriate move for the Metropolitan Police to ask that changes be made to the document. However, other lawyers believe this isn’t the case, and the Metropolitan Police has no legal force for such a request. According to Nazir Afzal, the former chief crown prosecutor for North West England, ‘The Metropolitan Police have no legal power to cause a redaction or the report being published in some shorter version’. He further contends that the idea that something will be said in this report that might contaminate the case is an exaggerated risk.
As a consequence of this delay, there are speculations suggesting that some kind of collusion is going on between the government and the police. However, nothing has been proven and as the famous quote suggests, they are ‘innocent till proven guilty’. Indeed, regardless of any collusion, the fundamental issue here is the constitutional predicament, which takes the issue beyond politics and concerns the rule of law.
d) The Rule of Law
The police investigation is about the rule of law and whether there is one law for ministers and their advisers and another for the public. Individuals do not always follow the law, and government officials are no exception. It has been noted, in fact, that ‘[t]he needs for some power to alter or override any law whatsoever is a theme that runs through centuries of disquisitions on sovereignty’.[1] As history demonstrates, governments do not always conform to the law[2]; thus, it might be reasonably concluded that there is indeed one rule for the rich and powerful and another for the rest of the society. In that regard, the police, as an institution serving the public and upholding the rule of law, should demonstrate its impartiality by holding the rich and powerful accountable without being influenced by their powers. So I ask you this, has the police acted impartially in handling the ‘partygate’ scandal and other breaches of lockdown rules by the government?
[1] Jeffrey Goldsworthy, Parliamentary Sovereignty: Contemporary Debates (Cambridge University Press 2010) 72
[2] Timothy A. O. Endicott, ‘The Impossibility of the Rule of Law.’ [1999] 19 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 1
