Boris Johnson’s trial raises big questions

Boris Johnson will face a rare ordeal today, a public trial by MPs. Such proceedings effectively fell into disuse after the impeachment in 1788 of Warren Hastings, the governor-general of the East India Company, resulted in his acquittal.

Unlike the Hastings trial, which lasted eight years on and off, Mr Johnson will be giving evidence to the Commons Privileges Committee for just a few hours. But for a former prime minister to be arraigned before his peers, effectively accused of wilfully or recklessly misleading Parliament, is unprecedented.

Whether by coincidence or design, the hearing takes place on the eve of the third anniversary of the first pandemic lockdown ordered by Mr Johnson. This ushered in the most draconian restrictions on the liberties of the individual ever seen. Not even in wartime have people been forbidden to attend a funeral or denied the right to see their dying relatives.

Mr Johnson appeared regularly on television telling people not to go out. Even after the first wave subsided, the NHS was ring-fenced so securely that ill people did not use it and are now paying the price. Petty regulations such as a ban on sitting on park benches compounded a sense that utmost caution was needed. Social distancing guidance and mask-wearing requirements continued for months.

So when it emerged that Downing Street staff would gather for end-of-the-day drinks that most people thought were off limits, it is hardly surprising that a public backlash ensued. When it was confirmed that Mr Johnson himself attended some of these events, there was palpable anger.

The former prime minister has been fined for one breach of the rules and has offered a “full-throated” apology to the country. The hearing today is concerned with the answers he gave in the Commons when asked about the parties. In evidence to the committee, Mr Johnson concedes that he misled MPs by saying that rules and guidance had been followed at all times, but did so in “good faith” and would “never have dreamt” of doing so intentionally.

“There is not a single document that indicates that I received any warning or advice that any event broke or may have broken the rules or guidance,” he tells the committee. But MPs will ask why he needed warnings or advice from his aides since he was ultimately responsible for the rules and was present at some of the events.

In its interim report, the committee said the evidence “strongly suggests” breaches of guidance would have been “obvious” to the former prime minister; but if that were the case, says Mr Johnson, why was it not also obvious to others? In addition, Mr Johnson questions the photographs showing him at these events. It was not plausible, he maintains, that he would have allowed them to be taken had he thought he was breaking the law.

There is an element of sophistry here that suggests little light will be shone on these areas today. However, for Mr Johnson to admit the rules were broken while acknowledging no one realised this was the case raises a serious question: why were the rest of us expected to follow them? More to the point, why did the parliamentarians who were responsible for passing the legislation not make sure they were clear?

Mr Johnson’s supporters have a point: whatever the background to this hearing, it feels like a show trial designed to impugn Mr Johnson’s premiership and close off any route back to power. The former prime minister has evidently put considerable effort into seeking to rebut these accusations, even retaining as counsel Lord Pannick KC who led a successful court action against Mr Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament in 2019.

Some commentators have questioned the legitimacy of the proceedings, but the final outcome will be voted on by all MPs. But they would have spent their time better by asking why ministers had so circumscribed – and criminalised – the social activities of the citizen that even the people responsible for drawing up the rules can argue they were unaware they had broken them.