2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
Trinucleus
Catbabel
Posts: 985
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:45 pm

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by Trinucleus » Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:04 pm

dyqik wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:41 pm
WFJ wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:52 pm
tom p wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:34 pm

Misconduct in public office is not 'misconduct in a publicly-owned office', it is 'misconduct while you hold a position working for HMG, at any level'.
Yes, there is presumably a higher threshold for such charges than breaching coronavirus regulations; but the prime minister, who has spent ages repeatedly telling the whole country to obey these regulations repeatedly flouting them, encouraging/permitting his staff to repeatedly do so, and then lying about it, is worse than Janice from Ilford having one more person over than is permitted.
It's misconduct while carrying out the duties of your office. The issue with the parties is that they were non-work-related social events, ie not related to his duties, and therefore not allowed.
One of the duties of his (job) office is ensuring the government regulations and law are adhered to by government staff, including in the their (physical) offices. Knowingly allowing flagrant breaches of regulations and laws by your immediate staff can easily be construed as misconduct in public office.
There's that sign you can get for your desk

"The buck doesn't even slow down here"

WFJ
Catbabel
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by WFJ » Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:05 pm

dyqik wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:41 pm
WFJ wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:52 pm

It's misconduct while carrying out the duties of your office. The issue with the parties is that they were non-work-related social events, ie not related to his duties, and therefore not allowed.
One of the duties of his (job) office is ensuring the government regulations and law are adhered to by government staff, including in the their (physical) offices. Knowingly allowing flagrant breaches of regulations and laws by your immediate staff can easily be construed as misconduct in public office.
Is it? The exact role of the PM is pretty poorly defined, but I do not think it extends to ensuring that Covid regulations are adhered to in No 10. For one thing many of the people working there will be civil servants, not political employees.

I would love to see Johnson in handcuffs as much as anyone, but I think it is pretty farfetched to think he could face charges of misconduct in public office for this. And, ignoring my feelings towards Johnson and trying being objective, I think it would be ridiculous for a PM to face such charges. I say this as someone who is neither a lawyer nor a constitutional expert.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by tom p » Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:28 pm

WFJ wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:05 pm
dyqik wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:41 pm
WFJ wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:52 pm

It's misconduct while carrying out the duties of your office. The issue with the parties is that they were non-work-related social events, ie not related to his duties, and therefore not allowed.
One of the duties of his (job) office is ensuring the government regulations and law are adhered to by government staff, including in the their (physical) offices. Knowingly allowing flagrant breaches of regulations and laws by your immediate staff can easily be construed as misconduct in public office.
Is it? The exact role of the PM is pretty poorly defined, but I do not think it extends to ensuring that Covid regulations are adhered to in No 10. For one thing many of the people working there will be civil servants, not political employees.

I would love to see Johnson in handcuffs as much as anyone, but I think it is pretty farfetched to think he could face charges of misconduct in public office for this. And, ignoring my feelings towards Johnson and trying being objective, I think it would be ridiculous for a PM to face such charges. I say this as someone who is neither a lawyer nor a constitutional expert.
Theresa May's former chief of staff (you'll note that he's clearly an ardent tory and a man who will at least have a working knowledge of such rules, as they might have applied to him or his boss) was the person i saw floating this possibility on a tw.tter thread that i believe was linked in this thread a couple of pages ago. So I don't think it's necessarily all that far-fetched. If one could bring a private prosecution for that, then you can bet that there will be plenty of people who would happily front & even more who would happily fund such a prosecution.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by dyqik » Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:43 pm

WFJ wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:05 pm
dyqik wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:41 pm
WFJ wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:52 pm

It's misconduct while carrying out the duties of your office. The issue with the parties is that they were non-work-related social events, ie not related to his duties, and therefore not allowed.
One of the duties of his (job) office is ensuring the government regulations and law are adhered to by government staff, including in the their (physical) offices. Knowingly allowing flagrant breaches of regulations and laws by your immediate staff can easily be construed as misconduct in public office.
Is it? The exact role of the PM is pretty poorly defined, but I do not think it extends to ensuring that Covid regulations are adhered to in No 10. For one thing many of the people working there will be civil servants, not political employees.
Who do you think is in charge of the civil service?

WFJ
Catbabel
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by WFJ » Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:53 pm

dyqik wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:43 pm
WFJ wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:05 pm
dyqik wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:41 pm


One of the duties of his (job) office is ensuring the government regulations and law are adhered to by government staff, including in the their (physical) offices. Knowingly allowing flagrant breaches of regulations and laws by your immediate staff can easily be construed as misconduct in public office.
Is it? The exact role of the PM is pretty poorly defined, but I do not think it extends to ensuring that Covid regulations are adhered to in No 10. For one thing many of the people working there will be civil servants, not political employees.
Who do you think is in charge of the civil service?
The head of the civil service

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by IvanV » Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:15 pm

WFJ wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:05 pm
I would love to see Johnson in handcuffs as much as anyone, but I think it is pretty farfetched to think he could face charges of misconduct in public office for this.
CPS guidance on Misconduct in Public Office
The use of [this] common law offence should therefore be limited to the following situations:
Where there is no relevant statutory offence, but the behaviour or the circumstances are such that they should nevertheless be treated as criminal;
Where there is a statutory offence, but it would be difficult or inappropriate to use it.
The offence is committed when:
a public officer acting as such;
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.
There is some potential relevance in that "essential workplaces" had some derogations which may mean that what was criminal for others was not criminal for them. But still I don't see this as misconduct in public office. The offence is in relation to things which you do in an official capacity. I don't think the PM had any official capacity in relation to approving gatherings. He had no power to sign orders of legal status approving gatherings.

On the other hand, what the Post Office people did in prosecuting people with false evidence knowing it was the computer's fault - that's misconduct in public office. They were exercising a public office in prosecuting people - that was a public capacity they had.

What ought to be misconduct in public office, or some other such offence, but isn't treated as such, is signing deportation orders and implementing them such that people cannot put in a proper appeal, such that something unpleasant happens to them, which was a reason they should not have been deported. Recently the (former) Danish immigration minister was imprisoned for 2 months for doing much less than what British Home Secretaries have routinely done since the time Michael Howard had the job. The Danish case was only about breaking up a family while in immigration detention centres, not even about the person being tortured to death after being deported, which is a possibility with what goes on here. It always astonished me that Howard and Blunkett repeatedly lost cases, finding they broke the law, and suffered no sanction as a result. They were not even preventing them holding that office, even though they repeatedly abused their powers. Mrs May's innovation was speed up the process to reduce the possibility of ever being taken to court for it. Some cases eventually came through, but Mrs May was by then long gone. How much more careful the Home Office/Home Sec would be if they could be sent to prison for such wrongful deportations.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by dyqik » Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:43 pm

WFJ wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:53 pm
dyqik wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:43 pm
WFJ wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:05 pm


Is it? The exact role of the PM is pretty poorly defined, but I do not think it extends to ensuring that Covid regulations are adhered to in No 10. For one thing many of the people working there will be civil servants, not political employees.
Who do you think is in charge of the civil service?
The head of the civil service
The governance of the Civil Service is also the responsibility of the Minister of the Civil Service. One Boris Johnson.

Per the wiki: "... the minister for the civil service is responsible for regulations regarding Her Majesty's Civil Service"

WFJ
Catbabel
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by WFJ » Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:52 pm

dyqik wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:43 pm
WFJ wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:53 pm
dyqik wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:43 pm


Who do you think is in charge of the civil service?
The head of the civil service
The governance of the Civil Service is also the responsibility of the Minister of the Civil Service. One Boris Johnson.

Per the wiki: "... the minister for the civil service is responsible for regulations regarding Her Majesty's Civil Service"
Yes he appoints the head of the civil service. He also appoints the head of the Met and the Archbishop of Canterbury, but that does not mean that the duties of his office include ensuring Plod and every local vicar follow covid regulations.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by dyqik » Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:53 pm

WFJ wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:52 pm
dyqik wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:43 pm
WFJ wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:53 pm


The head of the civil service
The governance of the Civil Service is also the responsibility of the Minister of the Civil Service. One Boris Johnson.

Per the wiki: "... the minister for the civil service is responsible for regulations regarding Her Majesty's Civil Service"
Yes he appoints the head of the civil service. He also appoints the head of the Met and the Archbishop of Canterbury, but that does not mean that the duties of his office include ensuring Plod and every local vicar follow covid regulations.
Don't be idiotic. I'm talking about people he interacts with on a daily basis in the offices he works in. He might not be their direct line manager, but he's still one of the main governors of the Civil Service, with a responsibility for it being run well.
Last edited by dyqik on Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by Woodchopper » Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:54 pm

IvanV wrote: It always astonished me that Howard and Blunkett repeatedly lost cases, finding they broke the law, and suffered no sanction as a result. They were not even preventing them holding that office, even though they repeatedly abused their powers. Mrs May's innovation was speed up the process to reduce the possibility of ever being taken to court for it. Some cases eventually came through, but Mrs May was by then long gone. How much more careful the Home Office/Home Sec would be if they could be sent to prison for such wrongful deportations.
In Britain there’s Crown Immunity which means that except under certain circumstances the government can’t be sued or prosecuted. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail ... e851fb7f37

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by IvanV » Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:01 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:54 pm
In Britain there’s Crown Immunity which means that except under certain circumstances the government can’t be sued or prosecuted. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail ... e851fb7f37
So that would seem to suggest a government minister exercising the power of a minister cannot even be prosecuted for misconduct in public office. That's why that offence is mainly applied to civil servants, police officers, etc.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by tom p » Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:05 pm

IvanV wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:15 pm
WFJ wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:05 pm
I would love to see Johnson in handcuffs as much as anyone, but I think it is pretty farfetched to think he could face charges of misconduct in public office for this.
CPS guidance on Misconduct in Public Office
The use of [this] common law offence should therefore be limited to the following situations:
Where there is no relevant statutory offence, but the behaviour or the circumstances are such that they should nevertheless be treated as criminal;
Where there is a statutory offence, but it would be difficult or inappropriate to use it.
The offence is committed when:
a public officer acting as such;
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
.
There is some potential relevance in that "essential workplaces" had some derogations which may mean that what was criminal for others was not criminal for them. But still I don't see this as misconduct in public office. The offence is in relation to things which you do in an official capacity. I don't think the PM had any official capacity in relation to approving gatherings. He had no power to sign orders of legal status approving gatherings.
I don't disagree about the home sec or the post office, but I have to disagree about whether or not it is misconduct.
In the flat above #11, he is not in an official capacity. As soon as he's in the #10 buildings, he's in an official capacity.
Did he misconduct himself by attending these parties, breaking the rules in place at the time? Yes
Was that wilful? Yes
Has that abused the public's trust in the office holder? Yes. You and I might not have trusted him as far as we could throw him; but there are millions of morons who did, and he had repeatedly told (or in one case minutes earlier just sent out a junior minister to tell) the public not to do any such thing?
Does he have a reasonable excuse or justification? No, unless you believe that colin the caterpillar can ambush someone or that a 100-person piss-up could be confused with a civil service work event.
By that definition, he has committed misconduct in public office and he should be prosecuted.

WFJ
Catbabel
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by WFJ » Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:13 pm

dyqik wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:53 pm

Don't be idiotic. I'm talking about people he interacts with on a daily basis in the offices he works in. He might not be their direct line manager, but he's still one of the main governors of the Civil Service, with a responsibility for it being run well.
I was aiming for playfully facetious, rather than idiotic ;)

I agree with you that Johnson has, or at the very least should have, responsibility for what goes on in No 10. That is why this is so politically damaging for him, and should, in any sane world, result in him resigning or being kicked out. But this is very different from legal misconduct in his duties. As I said before, I am not a lawyer, but I cannot see him facing legal action from this. Beyond maybe a fine for breaking the regulations.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by Woodchopper » Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:00 pm

IvanV wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:01 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:54 pm
In Britain there’s Crown Immunity which means that except under certain circumstances the government can’t be sued or prosecuted. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail ... e851fb7f37
So that would seem to suggest a government minister exercising the power of a minister cannot even be prosecuted for misconduct in public office. That's why that offence is mainly applied to civil servants, police officers, etc.
I'm not sure and disco probably has a better idea than I do. I assume that if a minister was obviously a wrong 'un a sensible government would waive immunity and throw them to the judicial wolves. Though that leaves open the possibility that an utterly corrupt government wouldn't do that.

I'm also assuming that immunity wouldn't apply to actions committed by the minister as a private individual rather than as someone exercising power as part of the government. So if a minister took bribes they'd be prosecuted.

But in general its my understanding that the courts don't want to wade into territory that they view as being in the domain of politics. So if an incompetent of malicious politician messed everything up then the proper response would be for them to be voted out at the next election.

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
After Pie
Posts: 2347
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by Stranger Mouse » Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:01 pm

WFJ wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:13 pm
dyqik wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:53 pm

Don't be idiotic. I'm talking about people he interacts with on a daily basis in the offices he works in. He might not be their direct line manager, but he's still one of the main governors of the Civil Service, with a responsibility for it being run well.
I was aiming for playfully facetious, rather than idiotic ;)

I agree with you that Johnson has, or at the very least should have, responsibility for what goes on in No 10. That is why this is so politically damaging for him, and should, in any sane world, result in him resigning or being kicked out. But this is very different from legal misconduct in his duties. As I said before, I am not a lawyer, but I cannot see him facing legal action from this. Beyond maybe a fine for breaking the regulations.
The next scandal would be him fishing for Brownlow to pay his fine
I’ve decided I should be on the pardon list if that’s still in the works

User avatar
jdc
Hilda Ogden
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:31 pm
Location: Your Mum

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by jdc » Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:25 pm

WFJ wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:13 pm
I agree with you that Johnson has, or at the very least should have, responsibility for what goes on in No 10. That is why this is so politically damaging for him, and should, in any sane world, result in him resigning or being kicked out. But this is very different from legal misconduct in his duties. As I said before, I am not a lawyer, but I cannot see him facing legal action from this. Beyond maybe a fine for breaking the regulations.
Having skim-read chapter 2 of this https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... -WEB11.pdf I tend to agree with you, WFJ.

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by IvanV » Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:49 pm

jdc wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:25 pm
WFJ wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:13 pm
I agree with you that Johnson has, or at the very least should have, responsibility for what goes on in No 10. That is why this is so politically damaging for him, and should, in any sane world, result in him resigning or being kicked out. But this is very different from legal misconduct in his duties. As I said before, I am not a lawyer, but I cannot see him facing legal action from this. Beyond maybe a fine for breaking the regulations.
Having skim-read chapter 2 of this https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... -WEB11.pdf I tend to agree with you, WFJ.
Thanks for this reference. I think it makes clear that ministers are "in public office", and so do not benefit get crown immunity. For example it cites the case of an attempted proscution for misconduct in public office of one Boris Johnson, for actions he took when was a minister. The case was thrown out, not because he was a minister, but because he was not acting as a minister when he took those actions. I suspect it might have fallen at later hurdles had it not fallen at that one. But I agree it makes clear that partygate is nowhere near "misconduct in public office".

User avatar
tenchboy
After Pie
Posts: 1891
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:18 pm
Location: Down amongst the potamogeton.

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by tenchboy » Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:33 am

Din't expect that, did you.png
Din't expect that, did you.png (96.18 KiB) Viewed 1509 times
If you want me Steve, just Snapchat me yeah? You know how to Snapchap me doncha Steve? You just...

User avatar
Brightonian
Dorkwood
Posts: 1429
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:16 pm
Location: Usually UK, often France and Ireland

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by Brightonian » Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:35 am

tenchboy wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:33 am
Din't expect that, did you.png
So... the Met are expecting to feel some collars?

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by jimbob » Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:53 am

tenchboy wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:33 am
Din't expect that, did you.png
I said elsewhere that the Overton window for satire has moved quite some way since Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize.

There is pushback by senior lawyers as to how a factual report could prejudice a police investigation.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by tom p » Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:56 am

IvanV wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:01 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:54 pm
In Britain there’s Crown Immunity which means that except under certain circumstances the government can’t be sued or prosecuted. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail ... e851fb7f37
So that would seem to suggest a government minister exercising the power of a minister cannot even be prosecuted for misconduct in public office. That's why that offence is mainly applied to civil servants, police officers, etc.
That link is all about sovereign immunity. There are 4 uses of the word crown, all in the same sentence, simply stating that crown immunity exists.
Your precis is inaccurate

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by lpm » Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:13 am

jimbob wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:53 am
tenchboy wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:33 am
Din't expect that, did you.png
I said elsewhere that the Overton window for satire has moved quite some way since Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize.

There is pushback by senior lawyers as to how a factual report could prejudice a police investigation.
Perverting the course of justice would be a jury trial, those parts at least shouldn't be published?
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by tom p » Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:16 am

IvanV wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:49 pm
jdc wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:25 pm
WFJ wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:13 pm
I agree with you that Johnson has, or at the very least should have, responsibility for what goes on in No 10. That is why this is so politically damaging for him, and should, in any sane world, result in him resigning or being kicked out. But this is very different from legal misconduct in his duties. As I said before, I am not a lawyer, but I cannot see him facing legal action from this. Beyond maybe a fine for breaking the regulations.
Having skim-read chapter 2 of this https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... -WEB11.pdf I tend to agree with you, WFJ.
Thanks for this reference. I think it makes clear that ministers are "in public office", and so do not benefit get crown immunity. For example it cites the case of an attempted prosecution for misconduct in public office of one Boris Johnson, for actions he took when was a minister. The case was thrown out, not because he was a minister, but because he was not acting as a minister when he took those actions. I suspect it might have fallen at later hurdles had it not fallen at that one. But I agree it makes clear that partygate is nowhere near "misconduct in public office".
Was he a minister at the time? I believe that he was only an MP, and his wikipedia page suggests that too. He was made foreign minister by terry may in July 2019, 1 month after the referendum. And the judgement was that his actions as part of the leave campaign were not part of the duties of his public office, which, as a backbench MP, were far less than the duties he has as prime minister.

Look at example 2.25. A prison nurse had an affair with a prisoner. She was in public office, but the affair part was her private life (it just happened to be happening where she worked and she had to use her special access to get there). She was prosecuted & lost on appeal.
Johnson (and all the other c.nts partying with him) were doing exactly the same - being in public office and using their special access to get to the places to do the private things.
Lord Justice Leveson, outlined the following test for determining whether the offence could apply:
(1) What was the position held?
(2) What was the nature of the duties undertaken by the employee or officer in that position?
(3) Did the fulfilment of those duties represent the fulfilment of one of the responsibilities of government such that the public had a significant interest in the discharge of that duty extending beyond an interest in anyone who might be directly affected by a serious failure in the performance of the duty?
I would also point you to 2.60 & 2.61
2.60 In some of these cases, there may be other offences that could also be pursued; for example, offences contrary to the Fraud Act 2006 may apply, or the defendant may have committed data protection offences contrary to the Data Protection Act 2018.
2.61 The starting point for prosecutors in these circumstances is that the statutory offence should ordinarily be pursued,62 and this is reflected in CPS prosecution guidance.63 However, there may be circumstances where a misconduct in public office charge is considered more appropriate, in particular where the statutory offence fails to capture adequately the abuse of public trust involved in the offending conduct, or the maximum penalty available is inadequate given the seriousness of the conduct.
Obviously the COVID regulations are the most appropriate and obvious breaches, but given the repeated nature of them and the wilfulness of them and the position that the PM holds (namely that of prime f.cking minister), then there is an argument to be made (following the emboldened part above) that a misconduct in public office charge is appropriate.
Looking at the rest of it, I would say that only senior people (e.g. the PM or any other ministers or senior civil servants involved) should be prosecuted for misconduct in public office. The other people are too junior to warrant a prosecution.

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by IvanV » Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:30 am

tom p wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:56 am
IvanV wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:01 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:54 pm
In Britain there’s Crown Immunity which means that except under certain circumstances the government can’t be sued or prosecuted. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail ... e851fb7f37
So that would seem to suggest a government minister exercising the power of a minister cannot even be prosecuted for misconduct in public office. That's why that offence is mainly applied to civil servants, police officers, etc.
That link is all about sovereign immunity. There are 4 uses of the word crown, all in the same sentence, simply stating that crown immunity exists.
Your precis is inaccurate
Correct, I was misled by it. Which was why I changed my mind subsequently.

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: 2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

Post by IvanV » Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:50 am

tom p wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:16 am
I would also point you to 2.60 & 2.61...
I think the reason that several of us read this and thought it was nowhere near misconduct was in fact precisely sections like 2.58ff (wilful misconduct, which includes your 2.60-61) and also 2.67ff (abuse of public trust). These stress the necessity for the seriousness of the misconduct and the seriousness of the consequences. I also remain far from convinced on sections like 2.43ff (a public officer acting as such), precisely because it makes clear that it is such a difficult legal point. I think it would be difficult to show he was "acting as such" when he attended the party, precisely when you consider those cited cases about various public servants having sex with people during their working hours, some guilty, some not guilty. The latter because they were they not "acting as such". (And indeed one of the points of this document is to argue for putting it on a statutory basis, rather than the current common law position, precisely so that such points can be better clarified in statute.)

You naturally want him to be done for it, and so you have a natural instinct to want to read this document as support for that likelihood. But objectively this document makes it pretty clear that would be a big stretch.

Sorry I sloppily reported Johnson being minister rather than MP on that prior case.

Post Reply