This is based on language from Erskine May’s ‘bible’ of parliamentary procedure, which states that ‘the making of an intentionally misleading statement [is seen] as contempt”. But when the committee released its recommendation in June, it only addressed whether Mr. Johnson had “misled the House,” reducing the burden of proof. The legal advice also points out that the committee “failed to recognize that to prove an allegation of contempt, one must be satisfied that the allegation is made with a high degree of probability, that is, that it is much more likely to be true than not to be true.”
‘Kangaroo court’
Allowing witnesses to give their evidence anonymously is an “unfair process” as their evidence can be relied on to show contempt of court, according to the advice. He says Mr Johnson should be told the details of the case against him, including the charges and evidence, so he has a proper opportunity to respond. Lord Pannick writes that for the proceedings to be considered fair, Mr Johnson should have the right to legal representation and should, through his counsel, be able to cross-examine witnesses whose evidence is relied upon to prove his contempt Body. The legal advice concludes: “For the reasons stated above, we advise Mr. Johnson that the Commission proposes to proceed with reference to material errors as to the elements of contempt and the standard of proof required, and proposes to adopt an unfair procedure. “But for parliamentary privilege, a court hearing a judicial review application brought by Mr Johnson would have declared the Commission’s report illegal.” The legal advice is set to be seized upon by allies of the Prime Minister, who have already complained that the inquiry risks becoming a “kangaroo court” and claimed it will be based on “hearsay evidence”. It is unusual for the Government to commission legal advice on the work of the House of Commons and raises questions about the supremacy of Parliament.
