Page:Fifth Report - Matter referred on 21 April 2022 (conduct of Rt Hon Boris Johnson).pdf/22

 45. We note that Mr Johnson’s point does not address the question of whether his family and the interior designer were permitted to attend that specific gathering, which Mr Johnson maintains was necessary for official work purposes, and with that number of officials already in the room.

46. Asked to comment on whether it would have been obvious that the event was in breach of the Guidance, in light of two photographs received by the Committee showing that the gathering was not socially distanced, as well as that fact that it was attended by those whose presence was not absolutely necessary, Mr Johnson replied: "No. It is a measure of how un-obvious it was to me that this was any kind of breach that the press office publicised this meeting in The Times. […] I had absolutely no sense while this event was taking place, and, indeed, at any time later, that it was in contravention of either the Rules or the Guidance. No one, before I spoke in the House of Commons, suggested to me that it was. […] It did not strike me as being anything other than an ordinary, common or garden workplace event."

47. Evidence submitted by Jack Doyle, Mr Johnson’s Press Secretary at the time of this gathering and later Director of Communications, makes clear that at a later stage he was doubtful about the compliance of the gathering of 19 June 2020 with the Covid Rules. In WhatsApp messages with other No. 10 officials on 25 January 2022 he discusses that gathering and states that he was “struggling to come up with a way” that the gathering was within the Rules, and he was “not sure” it would “work” to suggest that it was reasonably necessary for work purposes.

48. '''We conclude that there is evidence that the gathering in the Cabinet Room to celebrate Mr Johnson’s birthday on 19 June 2020 was attended by at least 17 people other than Mr Johnson, including by individuals who were not his work colleagues, and that it was not socially distanced. We note that Mr Johnson did not explain why he believed the event was “reasonably necessary for work purposes” other than to say that it took place immediately before a work meeting, and that “it seemed to me […] perfectly proper” for officials to be “asked to come and wish me a happy birthday” which we do not regard as convincing. Mr Johnson was also unable to explain why he considered his wife and interior designer “absolutely necessary participants” in a work-related meeting. His assertion that the Prime Minister’s family are entitled to use every part of the building does not constitute an explanation. We note that the Metropolitan Police issued Mr Johnson a Fixed Penalty Notice in connection with this event. Mr Johnson accepts that his attendance was unlawful but states that he is not clear precisely how he committed an offence. We note that he had the right in law to decline to accept the FPN if he had wished to assert he had committed no offence, but that he chose not to do so.'''