The government has commissioned legal advice from a top QC, Lord Pannick, which the prime minister’s supporters say undermines the legitimacy of the inquiry. Lord Pannick is a peer who has previously acted against the government for anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller and Samima Begum over the stripping of her British citizenship. The inquiry into Mr Johnson, by the all-party Privileges Committee, has been denounced as a “witch hunt” and a “kangaroo court” by his allies after the panel announced it could rule against him even if he did not mislead deliberately the MPs. . As a result, Downing Street and the Cabinet Office called in Lord Pannick for a legal opinion, arguing that the inquiry by the all-party commission could damage the workings of the government. The prime minister’s supporters now claim that Lord Pannick’s advice should mean the end of the inquiry. “Biased and creepy” Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries told the Daily Mail: “This expert legal opinion shows that the investigation was a biased, Kafkaesque witch hunt – it must now stop before it causes further damage. “As a minister, you simply cannot verify every piece of reliable advice and information given to you in good faith by well-meaning and conscientious senior officials. “What this can do is set a trap for every minister going forward and it’s a chilling prospect for the future of our democracy.” With Mr Johnson refusing to rule out a political comeback, the stakes could not be higher for him. If found in contempt of parliament, he could be suspended or even expelled from the Commons on a recall petition. But ahead of the imminent publication of Lord Pannick’s legal opinion, government sources say it will be “absolutely devastating” to the commission’s inquiry. Image: Lord David Pannick “Paralysis of democracy” Tory leadership star Liz Truss has signaled during parties that she would like to scrap the inquiry. But that would drown her in a cover-up and friendship controversy, similar to that over Owen Patterson, which seriously damaged Mr Johnson. Government sources approached by Sky News declined to comment on multiple reports about Lord Pannick’s legal advice, but there was no attempt to deny their veracity. “This is not for Boris, but for all future prime ministers and MPs,” a source told the Daily Telegraph. “Ministers will never be able to say anything if they think they can be held in contempt by accidentally giving the wrong answer.” It is also claimed by Mr Johnson’s supporters that the legal advice would show ministers an inquiry into misleading Parliament in “good faith” would create a chilling effect and “paralyze democracy”. “Ministers will never be able to say anything if they think they can be held in contempt by accidentally giving the wrong answer,” a source added. Use Chrome browser for more accessible video player June 2:14: PM’s ethics adviser resigns The committee is set to examine whether Mr Johnson misled the Commons when he claimed “all instructions were followed at No 10” and that “no party” was breaking lockdown rules. There is anger among Mr Johnson’s loyal MPs over the appointment of Labor bigwig Harriet Harman to chair the committee, because of her previous criticism of the prime minister over partygate. He took over the chairmanship after another senior Labor MP, Chris Bryant, quit because he was a vocal and persistent critic of the Prime Minister over his bills in parliament. Cabinet Office sources told The Daily Telegraph that the advice was commissioned by the newly created Prime Minister’s Office, which is based in their department but reports to Downing Street. They suggested that the advice would be published by No 10 rather than the Cabinet Office. Image: Photo: AP What do the rules say? It was initially thought that MPs on the Privileges Committee would have to prove that Mr Johnson had “deliberately misled” the House of Commons about the extent of Downing Street parties during the lockdown. This was based on the ancient parliamentary rulebook, Erskine May, which states that “the making of an intentionally misleading statement [is seen] as contempt”. But when the committee published its recommendation in June, it only addressed whether Mr Johnson had “misled the House”, reducing the burden of proof. The committee is made up of seven MPs – four Tories, two Labor and one from the SNP – and has asked for evidence of Mr Johnson’s “awareness of activities at 10 Downing Street and in the Cabinet under the COVID-19 regulations, from the incident. of these events to date’, as well as ‘any information given to Mr Johnson or inquiries made by Mr Johnson relating to these events’. The commission also said it would be “willing to receive oral or written evidence from individuals who wish to remain anonymous”, a move that angered Johnson’s allies in the Tory backbenches.

title: “Pm And Allies Launch Legal Challenge To Partygate Witch Hunt Political News Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-16” author: “Glenda Pirrone”

The government has commissioned legal advice from a top QC, Lord Pannick, which the prime minister’s supporters say undermines the legitimacy of the inquiry. Lord Pannick is a peer who has previously acted against the government for anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller and Samima Begum over the stripping of her British citizenship. The inquiry into Mr Johnson, by the all-party Privileges Committee, has been denounced as a “witch hunt” and a “kangaroo court” by his allies after the panel announced it could rule against him even if he did not mislead deliberately the MPs. . As a result, Downing Street and the Cabinet Office called in Lord Pannick for a legal opinion, arguing that the inquiry by the all-party commission could damage the workings of the government. The prime minister’s supporters now claim that Lord Pannick’s advice should mean the end of the inquiry. “Biased and creepy” Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries told the Daily Mail: “This expert legal opinion shows that the investigation was a biased, Kafkaesque witch hunt – it must now stop before it causes further damage. “As a minister, you simply cannot verify every piece of reliable advice and information given to you in good faith by well-meaning and conscientious senior officials. “What this can do is set a trap for every minister going forward and it’s a chilling prospect for the future of our democracy.” With Mr Johnson refusing to rule out a political comeback, the stakes could not be higher for him. If found in contempt of parliament, he could be suspended or even expelled from the Commons on a recall petition. But ahead of the imminent publication of Lord Pannick’s legal opinion, government sources say it will be “absolutely devastating” to the commission’s inquiry. Image: Lord David Pannick “Paralysis of democracy” Tory leadership star Liz Truss has signaled during parties that she would like to scrap the inquiry. But that would drown her in a cover-up and friendship controversy, similar to that over Owen Patterson, which seriously damaged Mr Johnson. Government sources approached by Sky News declined to comment on multiple reports about Lord Pannick’s legal advice, but there was no attempt to deny their veracity. “This is not for Boris, but for all future prime ministers and MPs,” a source told the Daily Telegraph. “Ministers will never be able to say anything if they think they can be held in contempt by accidentally giving the wrong answer.” It is also claimed by Mr Johnson’s supporters that the legal advice would show ministers an inquiry into misleading Parliament in “good faith” would create a chilling effect and “paralyze democracy”. “Ministers will never be able to say anything if they think they can be held in contempt by accidentally giving the wrong answer,” a source added. Use Chrome browser for more accessible video player June 2:14: PM’s ethics adviser resigns The committee is set to examine whether Mr Johnson misled the Commons when he claimed “all instructions were followed at No 10” and that “no party” was breaking lockdown rules. There is anger among Mr Johnson’s loyal MPs over the appointment of Labor bigwig Harriet Harman to chair the committee, because of her previous criticism of the prime minister over partygate. He took over the chairmanship after another senior Labor MP, Chris Bryant, quit because he was a vocal and persistent critic of the Prime Minister over his bills in parliament. Cabinet Office sources told The Daily Telegraph that the advice was commissioned by the newly created Prime Minister’s Office, which is based in their department but reports to Downing Street. They suggested that the advice would be published by No 10 rather than the Cabinet Office. Image: Photo: AP What do the rules say? It was initially thought that MPs on the Privileges Committee would have to prove that Mr Johnson had “deliberately misled” the House of Commons about the extent of Downing Street parties during the lockdown. This was based on the ancient parliamentary rulebook, Erskine May, which states that “the making of an intentionally misleading statement [is seen] as contempt”. But when the committee published its recommendation in June, it only addressed whether Mr Johnson had “misled the House”, reducing the burden of proof. The committee is made up of seven MPs – four Tories, two Labor and one from the SNP – and has asked for evidence of Mr Johnson’s “awareness of activities at 10 Downing Street and in the Cabinet under the COVID-19 regulations, from the incident. of these events to date’, as well as ‘any information given to Mr Johnson or inquiries made by Mr Johnson relating to these events’. The commission also said it would be “willing to receive oral or written evidence from individuals who wish to remain anonymous”, a move that angered Johnson’s allies in the Tory backbenches.

title: “Pm And Allies Launch Legal Challenge To Partygate Witch Hunt Political News Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-17” author: “Ann Ardon”

The government has commissioned legal advice from a top QC, Lord Pannick, which the prime minister’s supporters say undermines the legitimacy of the inquiry. Lord Pannick is a peer who has previously acted against the government for anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller and Samima Begum over the stripping of her British citizenship. The inquiry into Mr Johnson, by the all-party Privileges Committee, has been denounced as a “witch hunt” and a “kangaroo court” by his allies after the panel announced it could rule against him even if he did not mislead deliberately the MPs. . As a result, Downing Street and the Cabinet Office called in Lord Pannick for a legal opinion, arguing that the inquiry by the all-party commission could damage the workings of the government. The prime minister’s supporters now claim that Lord Pannick’s advice should mean the end of the inquiry. “Biased and creepy” Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries told the Daily Mail: “This expert legal opinion shows that the investigation was a biased, Kafkaesque witch hunt – it must now stop before it causes further damage. “As a minister, you simply cannot verify every piece of reliable advice and information given to you in good faith by well-meaning and conscientious senior officials. “What this can do is set a trap for every minister going forward and it’s a chilling prospect for the future of our democracy.” With Mr Johnson refusing to rule out a political comeback, the stakes could not be higher for him. If found in contempt of parliament, he could be suspended or even expelled from the Commons on a recall petition. But ahead of the imminent publication of Lord Pannick’s legal opinion, government sources say it will be “absolutely devastating” to the commission’s inquiry. Image: Lord David Pannick “Paralysis of democracy” Tory leadership star Liz Truss has signaled during parties that she would like to scrap the inquiry. But that would drown her in a cover-up and friendship controversy, similar to that over Owen Patterson, which seriously damaged Mr Johnson. Government sources approached by Sky News declined to comment on multiple reports about Lord Pannick’s legal advice, but there was no attempt to deny their veracity. “This is not for Boris, but for all future prime ministers and MPs,” a source told the Daily Telegraph. “Ministers will never be able to say anything if they think they can be held in contempt by accidentally giving the wrong answer.” It is also claimed by Mr Johnson’s supporters that the legal advice would show ministers an inquiry into misleading Parliament in “good faith” would create a chilling effect and “paralyze democracy”. “Ministers will never be able to say anything if they think they can be held in contempt by accidentally giving the wrong answer,” a source added. Use Chrome browser for more accessible video player June 2:14: PM’s ethics adviser resigns The committee is set to examine whether Mr Johnson misled the Commons when he claimed “all instructions were followed at No 10” and that “no party” was breaking lockdown rules. There is anger among Mr Johnson’s loyal MPs over the appointment of Labor bigwig Harriet Harman to chair the committee, because of her previous criticism of the prime minister over partygate. He took over the chairmanship after another senior Labor MP, Chris Bryant, quit because he was a vocal and persistent critic of the Prime Minister over his bills in parliament. Cabinet Office sources told The Daily Telegraph that the advice was commissioned by the newly created Prime Minister’s Office, which is based in their department but reports to Downing Street. They suggested that the advice would be published by No 10 rather than the Cabinet Office. Image: Photo: AP What do the rules say? It was initially thought that MPs on the Privileges Committee would have to prove that Mr Johnson had “deliberately misled” the House of Commons about the extent of Downing Street parties during the lockdown. This was based on the ancient parliamentary rulebook, Erskine May, which states that “the making of an intentionally misleading statement [is seen] as contempt”. But when the committee published its recommendation in June, it only addressed whether Mr Johnson had “misled the House”, reducing the burden of proof. The committee is made up of seven MPs – four Tories, two Labor and one from the SNP – and has asked for evidence of Mr Johnson’s “awareness of activities at 10 Downing Street and in the Cabinet under the COVID-19 regulations, from the incident. of these events to date’, as well as ‘any information given to Mr Johnson or inquiries made by Mr Johnson relating to these events’. The commission also said it would be “willing to receive oral or written evidence from individuals who wish to remain anonymous”, a move that angered Johnson’s allies in the Tory backbenches.

title: “Pm And Allies Launch Legal Challenge To Partygate Witch Hunt Political News Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-21” author: “Norman Jorgensen”

The government has commissioned legal advice from a top QC, Lord Pannick, which the prime minister’s supporters say undermines the legitimacy of the inquiry. Lord Pannick is a peer who has previously acted against the government for anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller and Samima Begum over the stripping of her British citizenship. The inquiry into Mr Johnson, by the all-party Privileges Committee, has been denounced as a “witch hunt” and a “kangaroo court” by his allies after the panel announced it could rule against him even if he did not mislead deliberately the MPs. . As a result, Downing Street and the Cabinet Office called in Lord Pannick for a legal opinion, arguing that the inquiry by the all-party commission could damage the workings of the government. The prime minister’s supporters now claim that Lord Pannick’s advice should mean the end of the inquiry. “Biased and creepy” Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries told the Daily Mail: “This expert legal opinion shows that the investigation was a biased, Kafkaesque witch hunt – it must now stop before it causes further damage. “As a minister, you simply cannot verify every piece of reliable advice and information given to you in good faith by well-meaning and conscientious senior officials. “What this can do is set a trap for every minister going forward and it’s a chilling prospect for the future of our democracy.” With Mr Johnson refusing to rule out a political comeback, the stakes could not be higher for him. If found in contempt of parliament, he could be suspended or even expelled from the Commons on a recall petition. But ahead of the imminent publication of Lord Pannick’s legal opinion, government sources say it will be “absolutely devastating” to the commission’s inquiry. Image: Lord David Pannick “Paralysis of democracy” Tory leadership star Liz Truss has signaled during parties that she would like to scrap the inquiry. But that would drown her in a cover-up and friendship controversy, similar to that over Owen Patterson, which seriously damaged Mr Johnson. Government sources approached by Sky News declined to comment on multiple reports about Lord Pannick’s legal advice, but there was no attempt to deny their veracity. “This is not for Boris, but for all future prime ministers and MPs,” a source told the Daily Telegraph. “Ministers will never be able to say anything if they think they can be held in contempt by accidentally giving the wrong answer.” It is also claimed by Mr Johnson’s supporters that the legal advice would show ministers an inquiry into misleading Parliament in “good faith” would create a chilling effect and “paralyze democracy”. “Ministers will never be able to say anything if they think they can be held in contempt by accidentally giving the wrong answer,” a source added. Use Chrome browser for more accessible video player June 2:14: PM’s ethics adviser resigns The committee is set to examine whether Mr Johnson misled the Commons when he claimed “all instructions were followed at No 10” and that “no party” was breaking lockdown rules. There is anger among Mr Johnson’s loyal MPs over the appointment of Labor bigwig Harriet Harman to chair the committee, because of her previous criticism of the prime minister over partygate. He took over the chairmanship after another senior Labor MP, Chris Bryant, quit because he was a vocal and persistent critic of the Prime Minister over his bills in parliament. Cabinet Office sources told The Daily Telegraph that the advice was commissioned by the newly created Prime Minister’s Office, which is based in their department but reports to Downing Street. They suggested that the advice would be published by No 10 rather than the Cabinet Office. Image: Photo: AP What do the rules say? It was initially thought that MPs on the Privileges Committee would have to prove that Mr Johnson had “deliberately misled” the House of Commons about the extent of Downing Street parties during the lockdown. This was based on the ancient parliamentary rulebook, Erskine May, which states that “the making of an intentionally misleading statement [is seen] as contempt”. But when the committee published its recommendation in June, it only addressed whether Mr Johnson had “misled the House”, reducing the burden of proof. The committee is made up of seven MPs – four Tories, two Labor and one from the SNP – and has asked for evidence of Mr Johnson’s “awareness of activities at 10 Downing Street and in the Cabinet under the COVID-19 regulations, from the incident. of these events to date’, as well as ‘any information given to Mr Johnson or inquiries made by Mr Johnson relating to these events’. The commission also said it would be “willing to receive oral or written evidence from individuals who wish to remain anonymous”, a move that angered Johnson’s allies in the Tory backbenches.