BORIS Johnson will not face a criminal prosecution over claims he made during the referendum campaign about the UK sending £350 million a week to the EU, after winning a High Court challenge.
The former foreign secretary was handed a summons, issued by District Judge Margot Coleman on May 29, to attend Westminster Magistrates’ Court to face three allegations of misconduct in public office.
However, after a hearing in London yesterday, Lady Justice Rafferty and Mr Justice Supperstone overturned the earlier decision. Addressing Johnson’s barrister, Adrian Darbishire QC, Rafferty said: “We are persuaded, Mr Darbishire, so you succeed, and the relief that we grant is the quashing of the summonses.”
LISTEN: Wee Ginger Dugcast: Spanish veto, Natalie McGarry and Nigel Farage
The judge said reasons for the ruling will be given at a later date.
Campaigner Marcus Ball, 29, had tried to bring a private prosecution, claiming Johnson lied over the £350m a week claim, crowdfunding more than £300,000 through an online campaign.
Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice after the hearing, Ball said he would consider his next steps after the court gives reasons for its decision.
He added: “We have just given the green light for every politician to lie to us about our money forever. That is a terrifying idea.”
Asked if he had a message for Johnson, Ball said: “You don’t have the right to lie to the public about how their money is being spent.”
He added: “I would ask you, please, all members of Parliament, all elected representatives, understand: you
cannot lie to the public about their money.”
Darbishire argued the attempt to prosecute Johnson was “politically motivated and vexatious”.
The Tory leadership candidate did not have to appear and did not attend the High Court hearing. A spokesman said he would not be commenting on the case.
Home Secretary Sajid Javid tweeted: “Very glad to see the court case against Boris Johnson thrown out. Freedom of speech feels increasingly challenged. We should always seek to debate political arguments in the open rather than close them down.”
Meanwhile, Nigel Farage visited 10 Downing Street yesterday to hand in a letter demanding involvement in the Brexit negotiation process.
Addressed to the Prime Minister and copied to all the Conservative leadership candidates, it claimed: “The electorate have asked for us to come into the negotiating team and we are ready to do so immediately.”
The Brexit Party leader said: “We’ve got 55 days now of total impasse, while the Government spends all its time working out who the next prime minister is. We’ve only got less than five months until we’re due to leave. We would love to start helping now.
“This is us saying to you: we’re not a protest party, we actually want responsibility, we want to get involved.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel