Boris Johnson Partygate inquiry: The key clashes to expect

Boris Johnson has acceptable retired his defence against claims helium misled MPs implicit parties successful Downing Street during lockdown.

The erstwhile premier curate has accepted that helium did so mislead Parliament erstwhile helium said the guidance and rules were followed astatine each times - but helium insists this was not connected purpose.

So the absorption present turns to whether it was "inadvertent, reckless oregon intentional".

This volition beryllium the cardinal contented erstwhile Mr Johnson is questioned successful idiosyncratic by MPs connected the Privileges Committee connected Wednesday.

Here are immoderate of the cardinal arguments apt to diagnostic successful the televised grilling.

Mr Johnson volition situation the committee's pursuit of alleged "recklessness".

His ineligible squad believes it should see lone whether helium "deliberately" misled the Commons.

And helium himself has suggested the conception of "recklessness" is "unprecedented and absurd".

Mr Johnson has said the committee should lone beryllium examining for accuracy his statements astir compliance with Covid regulations and not the guidance.

The Commons had agreed that the committee look astatine his "assertions astir the legality of activities successful Downing Street".

So Mr Johnson argues the committee is exceeding its remit due to the fact that guidance - dissimilar regulations - isn't legally enforceable.

This statement is apt to get abbreviated shrift from the committee.

The afloat solution passed by MPs - and which acceptable up its enquiry - specifically cites statements made by Mr Johnson, arsenic perchance misleading.

That includes statements made connected 1 December 2021, erstwhile Mr Johnson said "all guidance was followed wholly successful Number 10"; and connected 8 December 2021, that "the guidance was followed and the rules were followed astatine each times".

And the committee is acrophobic with whether what helium said was true, alternatively than the favoritism betwixt regulations and guidance.

A large clash is apt to hap implicit a ample pillar of Mr Johnson's defence.

He claims helium was ne'er told that immoderate of the gatherings astatine the bosom of authorities - for which immoderate attendees were subsequently fined - were against the rules, and that helium was explicitly told immoderate were compliant.

The committee volition question wherefore Mr Johnson relied connected the proposal of his then-communications chief, a governmental peculiar adviser, alternatively than a imperishable civilian servant erstwhile establishing whether the 18 December 2020 "Christmas party" followed the rules.

And they volition scrutinise whether that proposal was ever intended to signifier the ground of a connection to the House alternatively than simply beryllium utilized arsenic a enactment for dealing with property inquiries.

Mr Johnson volition accidental that a elder civilian servant - his main backstage caput Martin Reynolds - besides believed that rules were being complied with.

But successful his evidence, helium doesn't accidental helium took Mr Reynolds's circumstantial proposal earlier making his present misleading statements to MPs.

(Mr Reynolds, incidentally, was the authoritative who invited unit to "bring their ain booze" to an lawsuit successful the Downing Street plot successful May 2020.)

And Mr Johnson says his then-parliamentary adjutant Andrew Griffith had been contiguous erstwhile "multiple" Downing Street unit assured him that the 18 December enactment was wrong the rules.

The committee is apt to walk immoderate clip connected whether the PM was assiduous capable successful taking proposal connected compliance - and this whitethorn find whether they judge helium was "reckless" oregon not.

The committee has different enactment of onslaught - that Mr Johnson doesn't request to trust wholly connected officials to cognize if rules were followed oregon flouted.

They accidental the grounds they person already seen "suggests breaches of the guidance would person been evident astatine the clip helium was astatine the gatherings".

They notation to photographs which suggest determination wasn't overmuch societal distancing astatine immoderate of the No 10 events which the then-PM attended.

But Mr Johnson is expected to enactment up a robust defence.

Firstly, that the photos were taken by No 10's authoritative photographer, and had rule-breaking been "obvious", it surely wouldn't person been captured for pictorial posterity.

And secondly, that societal distancing was each but intolerable successful warren-like Downing Street.

In his evidence, helium says: "I did not judge that the guidance required afloat societal distancing astatine each times."

The committee, though, mightiness besides privation to research whether alarm bells should person rung successful Mr Johnson's caput astir an lawsuit helium didn't attend.

He admits helium was told that the property bureau gathering of December 2020 progressive drink, food and a Secret Santa.

The committee are suggesting Mr Johnson could person told the House much astir gatherings astatine which helium was present, but helium volition reason that astir of the arguable events lone slid successful to breaches of the rules erstwhile helium was absent.

And helium volition constituent retired that since helium was issued with lone 1 Fixed Penalty Notice, past the constabulary indispensable person accepted that helium did not breach immoderate rules astatine immoderate different events.

So helium had nary cognition of wrongdoing to divulge.

And the erstwhile occupant of No 10 volition accidental that it is lone his outspoken ex-adviser Dominic Cummings who claims helium was warned astir the quality of the May 2020 "garden party" - and that fixed Mr Cummings "animus" towards him, helium is discredited arsenic a witness.

The question is whether the committee has obtained immoderate written grounds to backmost up the Cummings claims.

Even if the committee were to judge that Mr Johnson's inaccurate statements were "inadvertent" they volition question him connected wherefore helium did not close the grounds sooner, erstwhile it became wide what helium had said had been untrue, alternatively than await the last Sue Gray report.

The erstwhile PM volition situation the committee's assertion that helium was dilatory to close errors, arguing it would person been incorrect to remark during a unrecorded constabulary probe - which concluded successful May 2022, six days earlier helium corrected the record.

There is an intriguing connection successful Mr Johnson's 52 pages of grounds to the committee.

On 10 December 2021, helium sent a connection to his then-communications main Jack Doyle asking "is determination a mode we tin get the information astir this enactment retired there".

This was a notation to the December 2020 "Christmas party", which Mr Johnson himself hadn't attended.

He says helium utilized the connection "party" arsenic "shorthand" but the committee whitethorn suggest its usage demonstrates helium did person cognition of the social, alternatively than work, quality of the event.

The committee besides has WhatsApp messages wherever Mr Doyle seems to admit helium is struggling to find a mode of explaining wherefore a gathering successful June 2020 was wrong the rules and that this "blows different large gaping spread successful the PM's account".