The Boris Johnson Prosecution Case

Private Prosecutor Marcus J Ball's 44,000 word summary of his case research. This document includes discussion on the offence and motivations behind the prosecution case. Published for backers September 2018.

Lewis Power QC's Note was submitted to Westminster Magistrate's Court in February 2019. It's essentially a basic summary of the case. The High Court chose not to reference this information, despite it forming the basis of our case.Not yet published.

District Judge Margot Coleman spent over 3 months carefully considering the case and then ruled on May 29th that Mr Johnson must be summonsed to the Crown Court for a full criminal trial. The decision was a common law world first and made global headlines.

After only three days with the case the High Court quashed the decision of the Magistrates' Court. Within its written ruling published on July 3rd the High Court managed to contradict itself, Court of Appeal precedent and international common law precedent.

Jason Coppel QC, a Deputy High Court judge himself, and the team then submitted their application for permission to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. The application highlighted the High Court's errors in law and argued that the case was one of great public importance given it concerned elected public office holders lying to the public about the spending of the public purse.

The judges who made the decision on our application were the same judges who had originally ruled against us. We can't show you anything here because they did not provide any oral or written ruling aside from to write 'no, no, no' in response to our application. They refused permission, certification or a hearing. I feel that they simply wanted to shut us down but didn't have a legal reason for it and so didn't produce one. We are currently working on our response to this.

Marcus Ball V Boris Johnson, the prosecution case. This is a very basic case summary which does not include the vast majority of case content.

It acts as a summary relevant to the point in time in which Mr Justice Supperstone and Lady Justice Rafferty had shut down the case.

After this I spent three months investigating the conduct and connections of both judges.

Judge Supperstone, who shut down the case against ex-Mayor of London Boris Johnson, used to be one of ex-Mayor of London Boris Johnson’s lawyers but never told anyone. Neither did Boris Johnson. Marcus found proof of a payment of £35,500 from Mayor Boris Johnson’s GLA accounts to Mr Supperstone QC in 2008 that Judge Supperstone has not disclosed at any point. The full extent of their relationship is not yet known.

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office ruled that they would not investigate our complaint. Judicial Conduct is not within their remit despite their name. The website containing rules for judges was out of date and included the March 2018 guidance instead of the March 2019 guidance. The web page appears to have been edited after we submitted our complaint. Judges can do as they please it seems:  'It is for individual judges to decide whether they have, and should therefore declare, a conflict of interest in relation to a particular case. Such decisions involve the exercise of independent judicial discretion which this office has no role in reviewing.'

The JCIO response argues that we have used out of date judicial guidelines. We used the March 2018 guidelines which we found here: https://www.judiciary.uk/publications/guide-to-judicial-conduct/ (We referenced this exact same link in our letter of complaint). However, the contents on this page appear to have been changed since we submitted our complaint. It seems that they had forgotten to upload their most recent guidance PDF and in their embarrassment have concealed this point. See the edits they've forgotten to change on this page, seemingly because it was done in a hurry(image above).

This report from HM Treasury details the UK's spending on European Union Finances. It is published every year and presented to MPs in the House of Commons. It is important to our case because it establishes the actual amounts of money 'sent' or 'paid

to the EU every year since we first joined. It also makes clear that the 'rebate' is not sent to the EU.

This research from the Law Commission covers the offence in great detail. It is particularly interesting because it discusses the matter of 'acting as such' in detail as well as mentioning 'disrepute'.

This research from David Lusty provides insight into the duties of Members of Parliament. In order for the offence to be met the duties of the accused are the key focus of importance. This is a must read.

This code details several duties of Members of Parliament for the public benefit. It is created by MPs, for MPs and was enforced by a vote of the House of Commons.

As Mayor of London Boris Johnson was required to sign his agreement to abide by this code of conduct from the Greater London Authority. It includes several duties concerning required levels of conduct by the Mayor. This code requires the Mayor not to bring his office into 'disrepute'.

This ruling is of great importance to our case because of Mitchell's three stage test. The first two questions are 'First, what is the position held? Second, what is the nature of the duties undertaken by the employee or officer in that position?' The duties of elected public office holders and abuse of those duties is of central importance to our action. The question of 'acting as such' cannot be answered unless the duties of a Member of Parliament are understood first.

R V Obeid is a case from the Court of Criminal Appeal, Supreme Court of New South Wales. It involves the offence of misconduct in public office by an elected Member of Parliament. The Quach case is of great importance to this case and the question of 'acting as such'. Parliamentary Privilege is also discussed.

This case is very important because it is the most recent attempt to define the offence in UK law. However, its definition is not complete as it deliberately chooses not to define the meaning of 'acting as such'. It also refers to the Hong Kong definition with no apparent criticism.

This is a wonderful case of great importance as it's the only case we can find which spends a great deal of time and effort carefully analysing the meaning of the phrase 'acting as such'. It consults UK, Hong Kong, Australian and other jurisdictions. The Mitchell case is of value in a different way, Quach was most carefully carried out.

This case is important because it rules that the threshold test for abuse of public trust is a matter of fact for the jury, not a question of law for the judge. ‘Whether such a situation is revealed by the evidence is a matter that a jury has to decide.' R V France 2016 came to the same conclusion.

This case took place in response to the Plebgate scandal. A police officer was prosecuted for misconduct in public office because he lied to his Member of Parliament and police colleagues when he claimed that he had witnessed the incident. In reality he had not. He was given 1 year in prison for a lying based misconduct offence.

‘The issues for the jury were whether the appellants or any of them held a public office; whether each, in turn, wilfully misconducted herself in the performance of her public duties; and whether the conduct of each, in turn was such as to be deserving of criminal condemnation and sanction. The latter two questions were issues of fact for the jury'