Handling the Storm
Many words have been written about the report by the House of Commons Committee of Privileges into the conduct of Rt Hon Boris Johnson. The overall outcome will I am sure be contested by those who support him or lauded by his detractors. He is after all one of those characters who people have a certain view about.
This missive is focused on a different element – namely what to do when things go wrong. It is an inevitable part of life that things happen, and sometimes things go wrong. It may be small or large, within risk tolerance or not but in any event the reaction of the people involved makes the difference.
At the heart of this story was a series of events happening within number 10 during lockdown. Remembering that number 10 is a workplace and for many there was a need to be in the office to do their roles. Indeed, as the fulcrum of the effort to manage the pandemic it is not surprising that some office presence was needed. The challenge came when more “normal gatherings” (or at least non covid normal) and events occurred including parties.
The contrast in response can be seen starkly between the Department for Education and the Cabinet Office; one of contrition and one of fight.
Admittedly the Department of Education had only one event which was investigated, but it was a social event (within the work context) and designed as such. Once it became public, there was a quick public admission and apology. I cannot say they got away with it, but it has been largely forgotten.
Part of the reason it has been forgotten was the approach of Boris; he has dug in and raised the profile of the story repeatedly. His argument is that there were no unlawful gatherings, and the guidance was followed; the committee found:
“117. We think it highly unlikely on the balance of probabilities that Mr Johnson, in the light of his cumulative direct personal experience of these events, and his familiarity with the Rules and Guidance as their most prominent public promoter, could have genuinely believed at the time of his statements to the House that the Rules or Guidance were being complied with. We think it just as unlikely he could have continued to believe this at the time of his evidence to our committee. We conclude that when he told the House and this Committee that the Rules and Guidance were being complied with, his own knowledge was such that he deliberately misled the House and this Committee.”
The committee was going to recommend that there was a suspension long enough to trigger a recall petition (over 10 days) but having had the draft report Boris Johnson criticised it and the committee with (amongst other statements) “Their purpose from the beginning has been to find me guilty, regardless of the facts. This is the very definition of a kangaroo court.” (Statement of 9th June 2023)
As a result of this the committee would have recommended a substantially increased punishment of 90 days suspension.
What can we learn from this; well as we say when in a hole stop digging! Honesty is the best policy and make sure that when you are responding to situations think how it is going to be looked at. A prompt apology and a clear acceptance of reality will go further than entrenched argument and trying to prove the indefensible.
Disclaimer
The information in this blog post is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief at the time of publication. Whilst I provide general thoughts comments and views on topics, the comments are a summary and not to be regarded as definitive legal advice. Please take detailed advice if you need it from a suitable professional who can look at your personal circumstances and details.
