Downing Street has launched a authorized opinion from eminent lawyer Lord Pannick, which discovered that an inquiry into whether or not Boris Johnson misled parliament is being carried out by an “unfair procedure” which might be dominated “unlawful” by courts.
The opinion was commissioned by the Cabinet Office after MPs voted for an inquiry into whether or not Johnson’s denials of lockdown-breaching events at No 10 amounted to a contempt of parliament.
Lord Pannick, who has beforehand appeared towards the federal government, discovered that it was “wrong in principle” for the committee, chaired by Labour’s Harriet Harman, to go judgement not solely on whether or not the PM “knowingly misled” parliament, but additionally on whether or not he merely “misled” it.
Because of parliamentary privilege, the committee’s selections can’t be challenged in court docket.
But Lord Pannick mentioned: “In our opinion, the committee is proposing to adopt an approach to the substantive issues which is wrong in principle in important respects, and the committee is also proposing to adopt an unfair procedure.
“But for parliamentary privilege, a court hearing a judicial review brought by Mr Johnson would in our view declare the approach taken by the committee to be unlawful.”
The 22-page doc – whose contents had been leaked to newspapers pleasant to Mr Johnson forward of publication – argued {that a} discovering of contempt would require proof that the PM misled parliament deliberately.
And it mentioned that it was “unfair” that the identities of witnesses is perhaps withheld from Mr Johnson and that he is perhaps denied the chance to cross-examine them.
Source: www.impartial.co.uk