- submission. This strongly suggests that Mr Johnson did not “rely on” the evidence at all but was simply using it as a gambit to criticise the Committee in the public hearing. See paragraph 220.
- By advancing an unsustainable interpretation of Guidance in order that he can deny the implications of the evidence showing a lack of social distancing. See paragraphs 99 to 102, and 115 to 116.
- By being unable to deny that he said the words “probably the most unsocially distanced gathering in the UK right now” while not admitting that he said them, which has the ring of avoidance about it. See paragraphs 68 to 69.
Was it a contempt?
190. We have set out above the evidence which leads us to conclude that Mr Johnson misled the House. The House has instructed us to consider whether Mr Johnson’s conduct in this matter amounted to a contempt.
191. In considering the concept of contempt we are indebted to a helpful note on the subject by the Clerk of the Journals which we published as an annex to our Second Report and which sets out the relevant background in greater detail than we have scope to do here.[1]
192. Erskine May defines a contempt as follows:
Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of their duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results, may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.[2]
193. May concludes:
It is therefore impossible to list every act which might be considered to amount to a contempt, as Parliamentary privilege is a ‘living concept’.[3]
194. The House agreed in 1978 that “in general the House should exercise its penal jurisdiction: (i) in any event as sparingly as possible, and (ii) only when satisfied that to do so was essential in order to provide reasonable protection for the House, its Members or its officers from improper obstruction or attempt at or threat of obstruction causing, or likely to cause, substantial interference with the performance of their respective functions.”[4]
- ↑ Committee of Privileges, Second Report of Session 2022–23, Matter referred on 21 April 2022: proposed conduct of inquiry (HC 632), published 21 July 2022, Annex 3 (Paper from the Clerk of the Journals: The definition of contempt)
- ↑ Erskine May’s Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 25th ed. (2019), paragraph 15.2
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ Erskine May’s Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 25th ed. (2019), paragraph 15.32
