THE inquiry into parties at Downing Street is expected to conclude that there is no evidence of criminality, it has been claimed.
Despite the Prime Minister consistently hiding behind the inquiry and urging people not to pre-empt the results, The Times has been briefed about what it is expected to conclude.
The internal inquiry is being run by veteran civil servant Sue Gray. Simon Case, the cabinet secretary who was initially tasked with leading it, was forced to step down after revelations that parties had been held in his own office.
The Times reported that Gray has “not uncovered sufficient evidence of criminality” to refer to the case to the police.
READ MORE: Who is Sue Gray – the civil servant with power over Scotland's future
The Metropolitan Police have repeatedly refused to investigate the lockdown-busting parties on Downing Street, a position for which they are now being sued.
The news comes despite mounting reports of parties at No 10, including one which went on into the night the day before the Queen was photographed mourning Prince Philip alone at his funeral.
There is also an admission from Downing Street’s former director of communications - the now deputy editor of the Sun James Slack - that the party on April 16, 2021 happened.
Another party, which the Prime Minister admitted attending, saw 100 people invited to “bring your own booze” on May 20, 2020.
Both events, held almost a year apart, were in contravention of the regulations in place at the time and suggest a culture of Covid rule-breaking at No 10, Michael Russell has said.
Gray’s investigation into the events is not expected to make a judgment on whether Johnson breached the ministerial code. Even if she did, the result would likely be dismissed by the Prime Minister, who is the ultimate arbiter of that code.
The internal report will reportedly censure Johnson for a lack of judgment, but go no further in regards to him. Instead it may suggest disciplinary action against the staff involved in the events and criticise the culture at No 10 which allowed them to happen.
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