Court throw out case against Boris Johnson

Bromptonaut

Rohan Man
Location
Bugbrooke UK
Reasons still to be published.
 

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
I see the fool who brought the case says he's spent the £300,000 crowd funded and is in debt.

Hard to see how even leading counsel could charge that for a couple of hearings.

Take on the likes of Johnson by all means, but only if you literally have a million to burn.
 

welsh dragon

a permanent vacancy now exists
If the court case had been allowed to continue because Boris Johnson had told lies, every politician In the UK should be prosecuted for doing exactly the same thing.

I don't see how it was allowed to get this far, but stranger things have happened.
 

Brompton Bruce

Coffeeeeeeeee pleeeeease
If the court case had been allowed to continue because Boris Johnson had told lies, every politician In the UK should be prosecuted for doing exactly the same thing.

I don't see how it was allowed to get this far, but stranger things have happened.
Not every politician in the U.K. tells lies. I can name you several that don’t. Hume’s problem of induction, I’m afraid.
 

stowie

Legendary Member
It’s got to be proven that BJ told lies ,
I don't think that is the issue in question here, or why the case got dismissed.

Boris demonstrably told a lie when he talked about the £350M a week sent to Brussels. This is obviously false (it isn't a rebate, it is a reduction so this amount never got to Brussels at any stage). It is a fair assumption that Boris knew it was a lie, got told it was a lie, and proceeded with it in any case.

The defence of Johnson wasn't around the veracity of the allegation, it was that the charge of misconduct in public office wasn't applicable. They argued that the charge is about misconduct conducted in secret and there was nothing secret about Johnson's conduct which was done in full public view and with the ability for it to be challenged in public - which it was. My take on this is that the High Court agreed with this that the charge simply doesn't cover a politician lying in public even if the politician can be reasonably assumed to have known it was a lie.

It will be interesting to see the summary of the reasons for dismissal - sometimes these are published very quickly, other times not.

I see the fool who brought the case says he's spent the £300,000 crowd funded and is in debt.

Hard to see how even leading counsel could charge that for a couple of hearings.

Take on the likes of Johnson by all means, but only if you literally have a million to burn.
This is probably true, but slightly saddening. It means that we either have to rely on public prosecutions or can only hold politicians to this kind of account if we have a lot of money to spend.
 

Unkraut

Master of the Inane Comment
Location
Germany
The defence of Johnson wasn't around the veracity of the allegation, it was that the charge of misconduct in public office wasn't applicable.
I think it a pity the prosecution didn't get any further, but I am not surprised at it being thrown out from what I have read earlier. Johnson was not acting in an official capacity during the campaign, where he would be liable for prosecution.

The law in this case is doing what it is supposed to do. I don't think the attempt was vexatious, more a result of frustration at such a high-profile policitian getting away with being economical with the truth. To the tune of millions a week!
 
I think it a pity the prosecution didn't get any further, but I am not surprised at it being thrown out from what I have read earlier. Johnson was not acting in an official capacity during the campaign, where he would be liable for prosecution.

The law in this case is doing what it is supposed to do. I don't think the attempt was vexatious, more a result of frustration at such a high-profile policitian getting away with being economical with the truth. To the tune of millions a week!
It's astonishing how often the normal laws about fraud and democracy and honesty all seem not to apply to the Brexit vote.
 
Top Bottom