Boris Johnson summoned to face criminal charges

29 May 2019 by

District Judge Coleman, a judge sitting in the Westminster Magistrates Court, has issued a summons for Boris Johnson to appear in the Crown Court. He will face three charges alleging misconduct in a public office in a private prosecution brought by Marcus Ball. The offences alleged are indictable only which means that they can only be heard in the Crown Court.

The full determination can be found here.

Marcus Ball, a 29-year-old businessman who has brought the proceedings with the help of crowdfunding, alleges that the frontrunner for the Tory leadership lied about the amount of money which the UK sends to the EU both during the referendum campaign and during the general election campaign in 2017.

The controversial claim that £350m a week was sent by the UK to the EU and could better be spent on public services in the UK instead was a particularly eye catching aspect of the Leave campaign and attracted considerable criticism at the time and since. Some of that criticism particularly from the Institute of Fiscal Studies which branded the claim “absurd” and UK Statistics Authority whose chair described the claim as a misuse of statistics forms an important part of the case.

At issue in this procedural hearing was whether the court should issue a summons for Boris Johnson to attend court. He opposed the application and lost. He will be required to appear therefore be required to attend court for a preliminary hearing and the case will then be sent to the Crown Court.

Unusually, the case was heard in public and full reasons have been given in a written judgment. Essentially the judge has decided that while the allegations are unproven accusations and no findings of fact have been made, having considered all the relevant factors this is nevertheless a proper case to issue the summons for a serious issue to be tried.

The elements of the alleged offence

The offences of misconduct in a public office are as follows:

The defendant must be

1. a public officer acting as such

2. who wilfully neglects to perform his duty/or wilfully misconducts himself

3. to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the officeholder

 4. and does so without reasonable excuse or justification.

Public office

Boris Johnson accepted that he was a public officer because he was at the time a Member of Parliament and then, later, Mayor of London. So far, so straightforward. But he denied that he was acting “as such” when he made the statements in question. His position was that he used the information in the course of a political campaign — first the referendum and then the general election — and that he did not use the “figure for any purpose other than in the course of a contested political campaign”. He then argued that

The claim was based upon information that was, at all times, freely available to all. As with very many claims made in political campaigns, it was challenged, contradicted and criticised.

Accordingly, it was not sufficiently associated with his public office.

This argument was rejected with the judge ruling that there was a prima facie case that he was acting as such when making the statements and that his argument that in making these statements he was not discharging any public function is an issue to be raised at the trial.

Wilful neglect / misconduct

Mr Johnson also denied that there was prima facie evidence of this partly because again he argued that in making these statements he was not discharging any public duty and that secondly the complaint of inaccurate information is a common one in the course of political campaigns and that no complaints to the Parliamentary Commission for Standards for example had been made.

The judge rejected this argument too. She dismissed the idea that there was no link between his statement and his public office stating that “with that status comes influence and authority”, and decided that it should be left to the trial to decide whether any breach of duty had taken place.

Abuse of the public’s trust

The judge here noted that there was a high threshold for an abuse. However, Marcus Ball’s case was that making misleading statements which are known to be untrue could hardly be more serious. The judge agreed that this element was prima facie satisfied.

Finally, the judge found that there was prime facie evidence that the conduct was not readily explainable. She noted here the significant and trenchant criticism of the use of the figure. This gave rise to a real issue for the trial.


This decision is bound to have significant consequences. There is the prospect that the leading contender for the Tory leadership and to be the next Prime Minister will be contesting a private prosecution at the same time and one which at its heart raises issues of the trust which the public is entitled to have in its politicians.

It will not be lost on those on the Brexit side of the argument that that issue of public trust is said also to lie at the heart of their concerns about the way in which the UK has handled the process of withdrawal so far, which has led to the UK contesting EU elections so long after the referendum result with, seemingly, no real end in sight.

The political implications for Mr Johnson, the Conservative Party and the country more broadly may be very significant.

Owain Thomas QC is a barrister at One Crown Office Row.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: