Page:Fifth Report - Matter referred on 21 April 2022 (conduct of Rt Hon Boris Johnson).pdf/7

 1. the words used in the Rules and Guidance

2. the words used by Mr Johnson in answer to questions in the House

3. public statements made by Mr Johnson, e.g. in press briefings at No. 10

4. the dates of gatherings.

9. In respect of factual issues which Mr Johnson disputed in his written and oral evidence: 1. we gave him notice in our Fourth Report of the likely issues arising out of the evidence we had received

2. we looked at each disputed question

3. we put that dispute to him in the oral hearing

4. we considered his answers alongside all of the other evidence.

10. We came to our conclusions about those facts having regard to the quality and reliability (including the consistency) of the evidence that we had received. The most important examples of the facts that were disputed were those relating to the gatherings which Mr Johnson attended, that is: 1. what he would have known about because he was there

2. what he saw

3. what was said

4. what the gathering was for

5. the facts relating to the assurances that he received from Jack Doyle and James Slack, who were successively appointed as Downing Street Director of Communications by Mr Johnson.

11. We established what Mr Johnson knew about the Rules and the Guidance from his own public statements. This was important because in his evidence to us Mr Johnson asserted that the meaning of the Rules and Guidance was different from the understanding of the reasonable person and from his previous public statements.

12. Having come to conclusions about the facts, we then compared those conclusions with Mr Johnson’s statements to the House and his evidence to us about those statements. We concluded that he misled the House.

13. We considered the nature and extent of Mr Johnson’s culpability in misleading the House. In coming to the conclusion that Mr Johnson deliberately misled the House, we considered:

His repeated and continuing denials of the facts, for example his refusal to accept that there were insufficient efforts to enforce social distancing