The high court has today quashed the private prosecution against Boris Johnson, the former foreign secretary and favourite in the Tory leadership contest, that was being brought on the grounds that Johnson allegedly committed misconduct in public office by lying in the 2016 referendum about Britain giving £350m a week to the European Union.
Background
Boris Johnson has been summoned to court to face accusations of misconduct in public office over claims that he lied by saying Britain gave £350m a week to the European Union.
The ruling follows a crowdfunded move to launch a private prosecution of the MP, who is the frontrunner in the Tory leadership contest.
Johnson lied and engaged in criminal conduct when he repeatedly claimed during the 2016 EU referendum campaign that the UK handed over the sum to Brussels, Westminster magistrates court was told by lawyers for a 29-year-old campaigner who has launched the prosecution bid.
Summery
Mr Darbishire said his client denied acting dishonestly and claimed Vote Leave’s £350m-a-week claim – which was displayed on the side of a bus – was based on information that was “freely available to all”.
On 29 May, District Judge Margot Coleman threw out his argument that the case was a “vexatious” attempt to undermine the result of the 2016 referendum and found there was “prima facie” evidence of potential misconduct in a public office.
Speaking to reporters before Friday’s hearing, Mr Ball said: “I’ve spent three years of my life working ridiculous hours for, per hour I believe, the minimum wage to bring this case because I believe in the merits of it. Somebody who was doing this to create a stunt would not act like that.”
The £350 million figure was emblazoned on the red campaign bus used by Vote Leave during the referendum, with the slogan: ”We send the EU £350 million a week, let’s fund our NHS instead“.
Mr Darbishire QC told the High Court that the figure was disputed ”as soon as it was said“ and remains the subject of public debate.
“In drawing upon freely-available public statistics for the purpose of a political argument, Vote Leave, and those who supported and spoke for that campaign, were clearly not acting as public officials, nor exercising any public power,” he added.
“They made no claim to special knowledge of the sums expended by the UK, they exercised no official power in promoting that message and the assessment and publication of the level of the UK’s total EU spending formed no part of Mr Johnson’s official duties.”
Mr Darbishire said the offence of misconduct in public office had never been used for statements made in political debate, adding: “It is abundantly clear that this prosecution is motivated by a political objective and has been throughout.”
A lawyer representing Mr Ball said the issue was of “significant public and political interest which has been heightened by recent political events – including the candidacy of the claimant for leadership of the Conservative Party”.
Jason Coppel QC added: “But that does not establish that the motivation of the interested parties as prosecutors is improper, whether because it is a purely political motivation or otherwise.
“The entirely proper motivation for the prosecution is to hold to account a high-profile politician and holder of public office for what is alleged to be significant misconduct in relation to an issue of great public importance.”
Brexit: Boris Johnson ordered to appear in court over £350m claim
This is a "Pay as You Feel" website Please help keep us Ad Free.
You can have access to all of our online work for free.
However if you want to support what we do, you could make a small donation to help us keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.
