A authorized opinion commissioned by the Authorities from senior barrister Lord Pannick KC shortly earlier than Mr Johnson left workplace warned the investigation by the Commons Privileges Committee can be dominated illegal by the courts.
However in its response, the committee stated its personal authorized advisers had discovered that Lord Pannick’s opinion was based on “a systemic misunderstanding of the parliamentary course of and misplaced analogies with the prison legislation”.
It rejected Lord Pannick’s view {that a} honest process required that Mr Johnson ought to have the ability to be represented at its hearings by counsel who would have the ability communicate on his behalf and cross-examine witnesses.
It stated that whereas witnesses have been allowed to be accompanied by a authorized adviser, it will require a change within the procedures of the Home to permit them to participate within the hearings.
The committee additionally dismissed Lord Pannick’s argument {that a} failure by the committee to make an express distinction on whether or not Mr Johnson misled MPs deliberately might have a “chilling impact” on parliamentary debate, with MPs scared of mis-speaking.
It famous there have been well-established methods for minister to appropriate the document when the Home was misled, which had been used on the fee of greater than 200-a-year in recent times.
Mr Johnson in his ministerial profession had made numerous formal corrections, together with on 5 events when he was international secretary.
Supply hyperlink
