BoJo referred to police by the Cabinet Office. Partygate II?

[ianch99]

There is an interesting theory running around that says that had Johnson paid for his own legal defence, he could not have reported to the Police due to client confidentiality rules. As the state paid for the legal defence, these rights were not in place. Does this make sense?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by ianch99

There is an interesting theory running around that says that had Johnson paid for his own legal defence, he could not have reported to the Police due to client confidentiality rules. As the state paid for the legal defence, these rights were not in place. Does this make sense?

Surely, they'd still be with holding evidence if they did not pass the information to the Police, whoever paid the bill?

If I was an unscrupulous lawyer looking for future work from Johnson, I might be tempted to say that the handwriting on page ZZ was a bit unclear, hint, hint, and he might wish to rewrite it again.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by ianch99

There is an interesting theory running around that says that had Johnson paid for his own legal defence, he could not have reported to the Police due to client confidentiality rules. As the state paid for the legal defence, these rights were not in place. Does this make sense?

That’s right. The legal team for Boris Johnson was hired by the Cabinet Office which is a Civil Service function. Once the legal team found evidence of these new events, they passed this on to their client as the defence and accused has a right to know all evidence against them. The Civil Service code says that they must report all instances of suspected law breaking which is what they did.

If Boris Johnson hired his own legal team, we would know about the case against him but could keep schtum about it.

Yeah, he didn't have confidentiality as the Cabinet Office were the clients apparently so they had the right to see all submissions. Some Tory MPs are upset about the fact the Cabinet Office reported him but there is no suggestion the lawyers have broken client confidentiality.

Personally, I am not sure the police will investigate this. They've said before they don't retrospectively investigate lockdown breaches but Johnson and Starmer were investigated due to the public interest of them being senior politicians accused of breaking those rules. However, Johnson isn't PM anymore and the police probably don't want to have to keep going back to investigate other politicians should more come out.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Russ

There seems to be plenty of of people with the attitude of “it was years ago, let it go”.

No, let’s not let it go. He won’t ever get prosecuted for spaffing billions to his mates, he won’t get prosecuted for lying to the Queen, selling us his “oven ready deal” based on complete horseshit so let’s get him for whatever we can get on him.

I’ve never been a Tory fan but I have never detested them more than I did during his reign of terror.

Couldn't agree more or say it better.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Surely, they'd still be with holding evidence if they did not pass the information to the Police, whoever paid the bill?

If I was an unscrupulous lawyer looking for future work from Johnson, I might be tempted to say that the handwriting on page ZZ was a bit unclear, hint, hint, and he might wish to rewrite it again.

I don't think lawyers are allowed to break confidentiality unless someone is at harm and/or it's evidence that has to be disclosed to the other side in a legal dispute.

So if you told your lawyer "Yeah mate, I robbed that store. LOL!" they aren't allowed to tell anyone. If you said you planned to murder someone they can tell the police. If you documents that were evidence as part of a case then all parties in the case can see the evidence. I think.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Russ

during his reign of terror.

Not exactly Stalin is he?

Originally Posted by Pierre

Not exactly Stalin is he?

Maybe the Armando Iannucci version

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Ms NTL

Which one?

Soulsby in Leicester.

[Mad Max]

It's a witch hunt.

Originally Posted by Mad Max

It's a witch hunt.

Perhaps if he had been less of a witch, there would be less hunting going on?

Or are we saying that if Government lawyers find evidence of a potentially criminal activity, they should ignore it?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

It's a witch hunt.

Tell that to those who all followed the lockdown rules and those who could not even say their proper goodbyes to their loved ones.

Rules are for "all of us" to abide by.

[1andrew1]

COVID inquiry issues legal notice to Cabinet Office for not handing over unredacted Johnson messages

The COVID inquiry has issued a legal notice to the Cabinet Office for not handing over the full contents of Boris Johnson's messages.

The Cabinet Office tried to object to handing over the communications but was overruled by Baroness Hallett, the chair of the inquiry.

Downing Street insisted the government was supplying "all relevant material" to the inquiry.

The Cabinet Office has already provided more than 55,000 documents, 24 personal witness statements and eight corporate statements to the inquiry.

But the Government believes it has no duty to disclose "unambiguously irrelevant" material, Downing Street said.

Boris Johnson says he is instructing new lawyers to represent him in the inquiry.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-inq...sages-12888338

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by denphone

Tell that to those who all followed the lockdown rules and those who could not even say their proper goodbyes to their loved ones.

Rules are for "all of us" to abide by.

I know the govt made the rules but I'll bet thousands didn't follow them, time to move on old chap.

[daveeb]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

I know the govt made the rules but I'll bet thousands didn't follow them, time to move on old chap.

That's not the point old chap. Hundreds of people were prosecuted throughout lockdown for far less and the rule makers need to set the bar high, not duck and dive under it.