Boris Johnson ‘very much’ looking forward to partygate grilling by MPs as he says committee has ‘not a shred of evidence’
Boris Johnson has said he is “very much” looking forward to appearing before MPs investigating whether he knowingly misled parliament over partygate.
The former prime minister earlier on Tuesday said he accepts he misled parliament over partygate but insisted his statements were made “in good faith”.
On the eve of his appearance in front of the privileges committee on Wednesday, he said: “I look forward very much to the committee session tomorrow.
“I believe that the evidence conclusively shows that I did not knowingly or recklessly mislead parliament.
“The committee has produced not a shred of evidence to show that I have.”
Mr Johnson and his team are understood to be “very confident” ahead of his appearance.
The former prime minister earlier accused the privileges committee of having gone “significantly beyond its terms of reference” with its probe into whether he knowingly lied to MPs.
In his written evidence to the committee, published on Tuesday, Mr Johnson said it was “unprecedented and absurd” to claim that relying on assurances from “trusted advisers” was “in some way reckless”.
But the committee hit back with a scathing statement which said the submission contains “no new evidence” in his defence, and an earlier version had to be re-submitted because of “errors and typos”.
Boris Johnson to appear in front of the privileges committee from 2pm tomorrow – watch and follow live on Sky News
Boris Johnson pictured at one of the Downing Street gatherings
The committee launched its probe in the wake of Sue Gray’s partygate report, which blamed a “failure of leadership and judgement” for the lockdown-busting parties that took place in Number 10 during the COVID pandemic.
The report criticised the culture that existed “at the heart of government” at a time when the rest of the country was ordered to follow strict social distancing guidelines.
Mr Johnson said he accepts the House of Commons “was misled by my statements that the rules and guidance had been followed completely at No 10”.
“But when the statements were made, they were made in good faith and on the basis of what I honestly knew and believed at the time,” he added.
Other key points in Mr Johnson’s evidence:
• Mr Johnson insisted that other than the “assertions of the discredited Dominic Cummings”, his former aide, there is “not a single document that indicates that I received any warning or advice that any event broke” the rules
• He rejected the committee’s belief that the evidence strongly suggested breaches of coronavirus rules would have been “obvious” to him while prime minister, calling the allegation “illogical”
• He argued that some of those who attended the events “wished me ill and would denounce me if I concealed the truth”
• He criticised the “highly partisan tone and content” in the committee’s damning interim report
• Referring to allegations of rule-breaking, the ex-prime minister said that any lack of social distancing in the “old, cramped London townhouse” of Number 10 was not necessarily a breach of guidance
• He said that while he personally attended five of the events considered by the committee, he “honestly believed that these events were lawful work gatherings”
• While he said he accepts the conclusion of the Met Police investigation, he said that it “remains unclear” to him – and possibly Prime Minister Rishi Sunak – about why they were fined for breaching lockdown laws
• He did not deny joking that he was at “probably the most unsocially distanced gathering in the UK right now” during a boozy mid-pandemic leaving do, but said he did not recall making the remark
Mr Johnson conceded in his evidence that his statements to parliament “did not turn out to be correct”, but insisted he corrected the record at “the earliest opportunity”.
“I did not intentionally or recklessly mislead the House on December 1 2021, December 8 2021, or on any other date,” he said.
“I would never have dreamed of doing so.”
Members of the COVID-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group called his defence “sickening” and called for him to resign as an MP.
Becky Kummer, a spokesperson for the group, said it’s “obvious” that the former leader “deliberately misled parliament”, adding: “Far worse though is the lies he deliberately told to families like mine, after failing to protect our loved ones. His claim that he did so in ‘good faith’ is sickening.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Partygate inquiry explained
The 52-page defence dossier was published a day before Mr Johnson faces a live grilling by the cross-party group of MPs in a hearing that could decide his political fate.
In response to his evidence, the committee said Mr Johnson’s legal argument “contains no new documentary evidence” and that it had to be resubmitted on Tuesday because of “a number of errors and typos”.
What is the committee investigating?
If Mr Johnson fails to convince the committee he did not deliberately mislead the Commons, he could be found to have committed a contempt of parliament.
A suspension of more than 10 days could result in a high-profile by-election in his Uxbridge and South Ruislip seat – though MPs will have to vote on any recommendations.
Boris Johnson at a gathering on 14 January 2021
In an interim report into its investigation published earlier this month, the committee said the evidence it had gathered “strongly suggests” it would have been “obvious” to Mr Johnson that COVID rules were being breached at Downing Street gatherings he attended.
It said it had identified at least four occasions where Mr Johnson may have misled MPs, which will form the backbone of its investigation.
The first instance was when Mr Johnson told MPs in December 2021 that no rules or guidance had been broken – when subsequent investigations by Ms Gray and the Met Police found otherwise.
The second occasion came when the former prime minister failed to tell the Commons about his own knowledge of gatherings where the rules or guidance had been broken, when evidence showed he had been present at some of them.
Mr Johnson could be suspended from the Commons if he is found to have misled the House
Thirdly, the committee said MPs may have been misled when Mr Johnson claimed on 8 December 2021 he had been given “repeated assurances” that rules were not broken.
However, these assurances only applied to one event on 18 December 2020 and not to compliance with the rules and guidance more generally.
Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts
Finally, the committee said Mr Johnson gave the impression that he could only answer MPs’ questions once the investigation by Ms Gray had determined whether rules or guidance had actually been broken.
“While repeatedly making that statement to the House he appears to have had personal knowledge he did not reveal,” the committee said.
Read more:
The key parts of Boris Johnson’s partygate evidence
How he defends each of his partygate statements to parliament
As well as being required to be truthful to parliament at all times, MPs are also encouraged to correct the record at the earliest opportunity if they have inadvertently said something wrong.
The committee said in its interim findings that Mr Johnson “did not use the well-established procedures of the House” to correct the record, as is convention.
World
US announces it will increase steps to limit revenue of Venezuelan president Maduro – as he begins third term
The US has announced it has increased its reward for information leading to the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
In a statement on Friday, the US treasury said up to $25m is being offered for information leading to the arrest of Mr Maduro and his named interior minister Diosdado Cabello.
Up to $15m is also being offered for information on the incoming defence minister Vladimir Padrino. Further sanctions have also been introduced against the South American country’s state-owned oil company and airline.
The reward was announced as Mr Maduro was sworn in for a third successive term as the Venezuelan president, following a disputed election win last year.
Sanctions from the US, UK and EU came as Maduro was sworn in for a third term as president. Pic: Reuters
Elvis Amoroso, head of the National Electoral Council, said at the time Mr Maduro had secured 51% of the vote, beating his opponent Edmundo Gonzalez, who won 44%.
But while Venezuela’s electoral authority and top court declared him the winner, tallies confirming Mr Maduro’s win were never released. The country’s opposition also insists that ballot box level tallies show Mr Gonzalez won in a landslide.
Nationwide protests broke out over the dispute, with a brawl erupting in the capital Caracas when dozens of police in riot gear blocked the demonstrations and officers used tear gas to disperse them.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
From July 2024: Protests after Venezuela election results
More than 2,000 demonstrators were arrested, and Mr Gonzalez fled to Spain to seek asylum in September.
While being sworn in at the national assembly, Mr Maduro said: “May this new presidential term be a period of peace, of prosperity, of equality and the new democracy.”
He also accused the opposition of attempting to turn the inauguration into a “world war,” adding: “I have not been made president by the government of the United States, nor by the pro-imperialist governments of Latin America.”
Lammy: Election ‘neither free nor fair’
The UK and EU have also introduced new sanctions against Venezuelan officials – including the president of Venezuela’s supreme court Caryslia Beatriz Rodriguez Rodriguez and the director of its criminal investigations department Asdrubal Jose Brito Hernandez.
Foreign Secretary David Lammy said Mr Maduro’s “claim to power is fraudulent” and that last year’s election “was neither free nor fair”.
“The UK will not stand by as Maduro continues to oppress, undermine democracy, and commit appalling human rights violations,” he added.
Read more:
Opposition dreams crushed by Maduro’s ‘system’
Venezuela arrests six over ‘assassination plot’
Mr Maduro and his government have always rejected international sanctions as illegitimate measures that amount to an “economic war” designed to cripple Venezuela.
Those targeted by the UK’s sanctions will face travel bans and asset freezes, preventing them from entering the country and holding funds or economic resources.
World
Donald Trump says he’s ‘totally innocent’ and thanks judge moments before no-penalty sentence in hush money case
Donald Trump has been handed a no-penalty sentence following his conviction in the Stormy Daniels hush money case.
The incoming US president has received an unconditional discharge – meaning he will not face jail time, probation or a fine.
Manhattan Judge Juan M Merchan could have jailed him for up to four years.
The sentencing in Manhattan comes just 10 days before the 78-year-old is due to be inaugurated as US president for a second time on 20 January.
Trump appeared at the hearing by video link and addressed the court before he was sentenced, telling the judge the case had been a “very terrible experience” for him.
He claimed it was handled inappropriately and by someone connected with his political opponents – referring to Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg.
As it happened:
Trump sentenced in Manhattan court
Trump said: “It was done to damage my reputation so I would lose the election.
“This has been a political witch hunt.
“I am totally innocent. I did nothing wrong.”
Concluding his statement, he said: “I was treated very unfairly and I thank you very much.”
The judge then told the court it was up to him to “decide what is a just conclusion with a verdict of guilty”.
He said: “Never before has this court been presented with such a unique and remarkable set of circumstances.
“This has been a truly extraordinary case.”
He added that the “trial was a bit of a paradox” because “once the doors closed it was not unique”.
Pic: Reuters
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass had earlier argued in court that Trump “engaged in a campaign to undermine the rule of law” during the trial.
“He’s been unrelenting in his attacks against this court, prosecutors and their family,” Mr Steinglass said.
“His dangerous rhetoric and unconstitutional conduct has been a direct attack on the rule of law and he has publicly threatened to retaliate against the prosecutors.”
Mr Steinglass said this behaviour was “designed to have a chilling effect and to intimidate”.
It comes after the US Supreme Court rejected a last-ditch attempt by Trump to delay sentencing in the case on Thursday.
Trump’s lawyers argued that evidence used during the trial violated last summer’s Supreme Court ruling giving Trump broad immunity from prosecution over acts he took as president.
Read more
A guide to Trump’s inauguration
Trump refuses to rule out military force over Panama Canal
Trump appeared via videolink with his attorney Todd Blanche. Pic: Reuters
Trump’s hush money conviction in May 2024 means he will become the first person convicted of a felony to assume the US presidency.
He was found guilty in New York of 34 counts of falsifying business records relating to payments made to Ms Daniels, an adult film actor, before he won the 2016 US election.
Prosecutors claimed he had paid her $130,000 (£105,300) in hush money to not reveal details of what Ms Daniels said was a sexual relationship in 2006.
Trump has denied any liaison with Ms Daniels or any wrongdoing.
The trial made headlines around the world but the details of the case or Trump’s conviction didn’t deter American voters from picking him as president for a second time.
Trump appears in court during his trial. Pic: AP
What is an unconditional discharge?
Under New York state law, an unconditional discharge is a sentence imposed “without imprisonment, fine or probation supervision”.
The sentence is handed down when a judge is “of the opinion that no proper purpose would be served by imposing any condition upon the defendant’s release”, according to the law.
It means Trump’s hush money case has been resolved without any punishment that could interfere with his return to the White House.
Unconditional discharges have been handed down in previous cases where, like Trump, people have been convicted of falsifying business records.
They have also been applied in relation to low-level offences such as speeding, trespassing and marijuana-related convictions.
World
Family of Leicester City chairman killed in football stadium helicopter crash sue manufacturer for £2bn
Leicester City’s owners have launched a landmark lawsuit against a helicopter manufacturer following the club chairman’s death in a crash in 2018.
Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha’s family are suing Italian company Leonardo SpA for £2.15bn after the 60-year-old chairman and four others were killed when their helicopter crashed just outside the King Power Stadium in October 2018.
The lawsuit is the largest fatal accident claim in English history, according to the family’s lawyers. They are asking for compensation for the loss of earnings and other damages, as a result of the billionaire’s death.
The legal action comes more than six years after the fatal crash and as an inquest into the death of the 60-year-old chairman and his fellow passengers is set to begin on Monday.
Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha celebrating after Leicester City won the Premier League in 2016. Pic: AP
Mr Srivaddhanaprabha’s son Khun Aiyawatt Srivaddhanaprabha, who took over as the club’s chairman, said: “My family feels the loss of my father as much today as we ever have done.
“That my own children, and their cousins will never know their grandfather compounds our suffering… My father trusted Leonardo when he bought that helicopter but the conclusions of the report into his death show that his trust was fatally misplaced. I hold them wholly responsible for his death.”
The late Mr Srivaddhanaprabha’s company, King Power, was earning more than £2.5bn in revenue per year, according to his family’s lawyers. The lawsuit claims “that success was driven by Khun Vichai’s vision, drive, relationships, entrepreneurism, ingenuity and reputation.”
“All of this was lost with his death,” it adds.
The fatal crash took place shortly after the helicopter took off from Leicester’s ground following a 1-1 draw against West Ham on 27 October 2018.
The aircraft landed on a concrete step and four of the five occupants survived the initial impact, but all subsequently died in the fuel fire that engulfed the helicopter within a minute.
Thousands of tributes were left outside the ground in the wake of the tragedy. Pic: James Wilson/Sportimage
The other victims were two of Mr Srivaddhanaprabha’s staff, Nursara Suknamai and Kaveporn Punpare, pilot Eric Swaffer and Mr Swaffer’s girlfriend Izabela Roza Lechowicz, a fellow pilot.
Investigators found the pilot’s pedals became disconnected from the tail rotor – resulting in the aircraft making a sharp right turn which was “impossible” to control, before the helicopter spun quickly, approximately five times.
More from Sky News:
Police search for missing sisters
UK gas storage levels ‘concerningly low’
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch described this as “a catastrophic failure” and concluded the pilot was unable to prevent the crash.
The lawsuit alleges the crash was the result of ‘multiple failures’ in Leonardo’s design process. It also alleges that the manufacturer failed to warn customers or regulators about the risk.
Sky News has contacted helicopter manufacturer Leonardo for comment.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports9 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway