8 Thursday January 13 2022 | the times
News
The Metropolitan Police was refusing
last night to open an investigation into
the Downing Street party as experts
said that possible legal breaches could
be complicated by the fact it took place
at Boris Johnson’s home residence.
The Met said its stance had not
changed despite the prime minister’s
admission in parliament yesterday that
he had attended the garden drinks on
May 20, 2020.
The force appears to be determined
to wait for the conclusion of a Cabinet
Office inquiry before deciding whether
a criminal investigation would be in the
public interest.
Legal experts said that Johnson
could swerve criminal culpability, how-
ever, because the party was held at his
home address.
Adam Wagner, a barrister at
Doughty Street Chambers in London,
who specialises in pandemic legis-
lation, said that at the time the only
relevant law on gatherings was a ban on
leaving home without a reasonable
excuse.
Others who attended may have
breached coronavirus rules but the
matter is further complicated because
it was their workplace rather than a
public area, to which the law specific-
ally related. There was guidance at the
time that stipulated gatherings must be
restricted to two people, except for a
limited number of specific reasons.
However, the guidance was never
legally enforceable.
If it ultimately carries out an investi-
gation, the Met will have to determine
the nature of the gathering, which will
require a close examination of John-
son’s claim that it was work-related.
It is understood that detectives are
already in contact with the Cabinet
Office, although it is unclear if evidence
has been sent to Scotland Yard.
Amid the confusion, the Met has
come under criticism from former
For Tory MPs, it is all
about keeping their seats
Analysis
O
n Monday evening only
hours after email
evidence emerged of the
Downing Street
lockdown-breaking
drinks party, senior Tory colleagues
contacted the prime minister with a
warning (Oliver Wright writes).
He could no longer hide behind
Sue Gray’s inquiry and needed to
come clean, they said.
Those voices grew louder on
Tuesday after Johnson pointedly
failed to say whether he had turned
up at the event in the Downing
Street garden during the height of
the first lockdown. The primeminister was left in no doubt that his
own MPs — even loyalists — would
not defend Downing Street’s position.
And despite the firestorm
surrounding Johnson’s statement
yesterday it did the job it needed to
do: it bought the prime minister time.
The statement itself was cleverly
worded. Johnson’s contrition and
apology was mainly for the actions
of others — and his own failure
to intervene.
He maintained that he himself
was unaware that the gathering in
the Downing Street garden was
primarily a social gathering rather
than a work event.
And his apology, in the main, was
for the anger people felt about whatSupport for the Conservatives has fall-
en to its lowest level in almost a decade
after revelations about parties in
Downing Street during lockdown.
A poll for The Times found that 60
per cent of the public believed Boris
Johnson should resign over the scan-
dal, including 38 per cent of Conserva-
tive voters at the last election.
Johnson’s approval ratings are at
their lowest level since he took office
and are only two points above Theresa
May’s rating the week before her resig-
nation in 2018.
The YouGov survey, conducted
before Johnson’s apology yesterday,
found that 78 per cent of the public did
not believe that the prime minister had
been honest in his answers to questions
about the alleged parties. This included
63 per cent of Conservative voters.
Conservative support has fallen five
points in a week to 28 per cent, ten
points behind Labour on 38 per cent. It
is the Tories’ worst poll rating since
December 2013.
Supporters of the prime minister will
point to Labour’s support rising by only
one percentage point, with the main
beneficiaries being the Lib Dems up
three points on 13 per cent and the
Greens up one point on 7 per cent.
Nevertheless, on the question of who
would make the best prime minister Sir
Keir Starmer has built up a 12-pointinto the company
globally.
Sunak is the 9-
favourite to be the next
prime minister,
according to the
bookmaker Coral.News Politics
Sunak steers 200
miles clear of PM
T
he sun was
shining on
Rishi Sunak
yesterday as
he smiled for
a photograph on the
north Devon coast —
while 200 miles away
in Westminster his
boss was preparing to
apologise for a boozy
garden party during a
national lockdown
(Will Humphries
writes).
The chancellor
tweeted that he was
“excited” to be in
Ilfracombe, a four and
a half hour drive from
the Commons, to
announce investment
in a local
pharmaceutical factory
and posted a picture of
himself with Selaine
Saxby, the MP for
North Devon, before a
tour and photo
opportunity at the
Pall Corporation
factory.
Back in Westminster,
Boris Johnson faced
calls to resign during
prime minister’s
questions after
apologising for a
“bring your own
booze” event in the
No 10 garden during
the first lockdown. He
was flanked in theCommons by Dominic
Raab, the deputy prime
minister, and Liz Truss,
the foreign secretary.
During Sunak’s visit
to Devon he welcomed
Pall’s announcement
that it was investing
£60 million and
creating 200 jobs at
the site, which
manufactures
filtration, separation
and purification
technologies.
He tweeted that the
investment was “a
fantastic example of
levelling-up in action”.
“This site started in
the 1970s with just 50
employees and now is
playing a crucial role
in the world’s fight
back against Covid-19,
saving lives in every
country on the planet
and boosting the
Devon economy,”
Sunak said.
“As we look to
establish ourselves as a
truly Global Britain
and drive forward our
recovery it’s crucial we
continue to attract
foreign investment and
create well-paid jobs
for the future.”
Pall announced its
plans for expansion in
July last year, with
$1.5 billion injectedConservative support at nine-year low
lead. Only 23 per cent think Johnson
would make the best prime minister
compared with 35 per cent for Starmer.
Most worryingly for Johnson is the
fall off in support among voters who
supported the Conservatives — many
for the first time — in 2019. Thirty-
eight per cent of 2019 Tory voters
thought Johnson should resign now
over the scandal. This rose to 45 per
cent when they were asked if Johnson
should stay if he was found to have at-
tended the drinks reception, which he
admitted yesterday. Only about half of
Tory 2019 supporters said they believed
Johnson was the best prime minister,
although only 9 per cent backed Starm-
er, with the rest unsure.
Asked if it was more important that a
prime minister told the truth than took
the right actions on issues facing the
country, 46 per cent said truthfulness
was more important.
YouGov interviewed 1,666 adults on-
line between 11th and 12th of January.Oliver Wright Policy Editor Voting intention
*Weighted by likelihood to vote, excluding those
who would not vote or don't knowSource:YouGovJan 11-12 (Jan 6-7)
Lab
C
Lib Dem
Green
SNP
Other38% (37)
28% (33)
13% (10)
7% (6)
5% (5)
9% (9)Met rejects call for
No 10 party inquiry
despite mea culpa
Fiona Hamilton Crime Editor
Jonathan Ames Legal Editor
senior officers who say its refusal to act
is damaging public confidence.
Last night Ed Davey, the leader of the
Liberal Democrats, called on the Met to
investigate and said that the prime
minister should be interviewed under
caution. He said that the party was
“almost certainly an illegal gathering”
because it was not a work meeting, given
those invited were asked to “bring your
own booze”.
Davey said the Met should reassure
the public “that there isn’t one rule for
them and another for Boris Johnson” by
announcing a full inquiry.
Wagner said that Johnson’s
statement was carefully worded and
“obviously lawyered”. He said he
had “probably done enough” to avoid
prosecution by saying he believed
implicitly it was a work event and
technically could be said to fall within
the guidance.
Nonetheless, Wagner acknowledged
that it was “a weak defence” and the
garden event still appeared to have
been a party. The fact that alcohol was
involved meant that it was more than
likely that the social distancing require-
ments would not have been followed,
he said.
He said that Johnson’s admission in
parliament could not be used against
him thanks to a more than 300-year-
old law. The Bill of Rights 1689 provides
parliamentary privilege to comments
made in chambers to guarantee freedom
of speech for MPs and peers.
The Met has ruled out inquiries into
alleged Covid breaches at No 10, saying
that material in the public domain does
not meet the evidential threshold and
that the force does not retrospectively
investigate coronavirus breaches.
Scotland Yard says that it has applied
its enforcement approach throughout
the pandemic to the general public and
well known figures alike. It insists it has
generally only intervened in cases in
which people repeatedly broke the
rules, such as the organisers of illegal
raves.Q&A
Has Boris Johnson broken the law?
It is arguable, but legal opinion is
that he did not break the law as the
event took place at his residence.
Adam Wagner, a barrister at
Doughty Street Chambers in
London, said that the “only relevant
legal provisions” regarding the
garden party are those that related
to leaving home without permission.
Legal restrictions on organising
events did not come into effect until
after the party. Therefore, he could
be saved from prosecution by dint
of the fact that he always works
from home.What about others at the party?
Downing Street staff members
would have travelled to No 10 for
work legally. But as Wagner pointed
out, the garden event had all the
hallmarks of a party. While those
staff members would have been
permitted to leave their homes for
work, they would have potentially
breached the law for leaving to then
engage in a boozy knees-up.What was the difference between
the law and guidance at the time?
The law stated that no one could
participate in a gathering of more
than two people in a public place
unless it was for specific, limited
reasons. It was permitted if they
lived together, if it was for work, for
a funeral, or if they were providing
care. Guidance stipulated that,
beyond exercise, people could meet
just one person from outside their
household. Workplace guidelines
said meetings should be minimised
and limited to “only absolutely
necessary participants”.