THERE was an attempt by the SNP member of the Commons Privileges Committee which savaged Boris Johnson to have the former prime minister expelled from parliament.
Allan Dorans and Labour’s Yvonne Fovargue wanted to go further than the punishment meted out to Johnson for misleading the Commons, abusing and intimidating MPs investigating him, and undermining democracy.
However, the pair were unsuccessful.
Many may laud their efforts, though it’s unlikely that even harsher penalties will prevent some comeback by Johnson. Not only does an open door wait for him with the hard-right Reform Party – formerly Nigel Farage’s UKIP – but even expelled members can make a return to parliament, as the MP John Wilkes did in the mid-1700s.
📝 Sign up for Unspun – Scotland's top politics newsletter. Enjoy exclusive opinion and analysis from some of Scotland's best political writers and commentators sent directly to your inbox every weekday evening. Click here to sign up 👈
There is, some say, perhaps a different means of dealing with Johnson, one that many feel fitting given the recent events surrounding Nicola Sturgeon: arrest.
It appears there could be grounds to consider whether Johnson may have committed the offence of ‘misconduct in a public office’, not simply in connection with Partygate, but also in the wider way he conducted government during the pandemic.
His government, it is alleged, awarded 11.4% of Westminster Covid contracts, worth billions, to Conservative Party donors and associates. Some claim this alone makes the saga around the SNP’s finances seem ‘relatively’ minor.
Then there is the lack of preparation for the pandemic; policies which seemingly led to the increasing spread of Covid like ‘Eat Out to Help Out’; and claims that Johnson infamously said ‘let the bodies pile high’.
Does this amount to misconduct in public office? One of the UK’s leading specialist law firms in criminal and regulatory litigation, Corker Binning, notes that in France criminal investigations include whether the government’s “response ... resulted in the commission of offences including involuntary manslaughter … endangering lives and the wilful refusal to fight a disaster”.
Gendarmes raided homes and offices of the health minister, director of public health, and the former prime minister. Regarding UK public officials, Corker Binning said “there are clear warning signs that merit criminal investigation”.
The renowned QC Michael Mansfield chaired the ‘People’s Covid Inquiry’, which spent four months gathering evidence about the government’s response to the pandemic.
Mansfield has said there are grounds for prosecuting Johnson, members of his cabinet, and former ministers, for their role in Covid.
The People’s Covid report said: “The government’s handling of the pandemic was grossly negligent and has unquestionably led to significant loss of life that could and should have been avoided … Those in charge during the pandemic showed a wilful disregard for public safety and a callousness toward the numbers of people who have died and their bereaved relatives.”
The UK’s former chief scientist Sir David King has claimed the government could have saved more than 100,000 lives if it had taken a more cautious approach.
Misconduct in a public office, according to the Crown Prosecution Service in England, is a common law offence which can carry a maximum of life imprisonment.
It occurs when a public office holder “wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification”.
Just as with those already subjected to the scrutiny of the law, such as Nicola Sturgeon, the presumption around Johnson must be innocent until proven guilty.
It will be instructional to observe the process of the ongoing official public inquiry into the pandemic and learn what evidence, if any, may emerge that justifies the concerns in the minds of some that Johnson should be arrested and questioned by police.
...want more? Sign up for free to the Unspun newsletter and receive it directly to your inbox every weekday night at 7pm. Click here 👈
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel