Page:Fifth Report - Matter referred on 21 April 2022 (conduct of Rt Hon Boris Johnson).pdf/78

 in his attempts to distance himself from the campaign of abuse and intimidation of committee members. This in our view constitutes a further significant contempt. (Paragraph 224)

36. On 12 June 2023 at 11.57 pm Mr Johnson’s lawyers delivered to the Committee a further purported response to our warning letter of 8 June. We have considered its contents even though we are not obliged to do so. The response was not accompanied by a statement of truth from Mr Johnson. The response makes a series of tendentious accusations. The document is reproduced in full at Annex 3 together with our comments on each paragraph. (Paragraph 226)

37. Before his latest purported submission we had decided to treat Mr Johnson’s public statement made on 9 June in response to our warning letter as his response to that letter and his last submissions to this inquiry. We note that on 9 June Mr Johnson stated that “[i]t is in no one’s interest […] that the process the Committee has launched should continue for a single day further.” We agree with Mr Johnson’s view on that point. (Paragraph 227)

38. Contrary to Mr Johnson’s assertions, he has been given multiple opportunities to set out his views and to comment on the evidence in the inquiry:
 * We set out in detail the evidence and the issues to be raised with him in our Fourth Report published on 3 March 2023.
 * We disclosed to Mr Johnson in unredacted form all the evidence we proposed to rely upon and the identity of all our witnesses.
 * At the start of the inquiry, in July 2022, Mr Johnson was invited to make an initial submission in writing concerning the allegations and to identify any witnesses that he believed could give relevant evidence. He did not make such a submission or identify any witnesses.
 * Mr Johnson was invited to give oral evidence and publish a written statement, which he did and was questioned about the evidence and issues raised in the Fourth Report.
 * Mr Johnson was invited to make final submissions in the inquiry and did so.
 * Mr Johnson was sent details of our proposed criticisms of him, and the evidence supporting them, on 8 June 2022, and invited to respond.
 * None of the evidence which we relied on in the material sent to Mr Johnson on 8 June was new to Mr Johnson. It was the same as that which was put to him in the Fourth Report and in the oral evidence session. He had the opportunity to respond to that in oral evidence and by written submission and he did.
 * In his oral evidence Mr Johnson accused the Committee of suppressing evidence which would be helpful to him. We invited him to identify any such evidence. The Committee obtained that evidence from the witnesses he had indicated, supported by statements of truth. In the event he placed no reliance on it. The