WHAT’S THE STORY?
A crowdfunded private prosecution case against former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson gets its first appearance in court today.
Marcus J Ball, 29, took his case against Johnson to Westminster Magistrates’ Court on February 22. He has accused Johnson of abusing public trust in his office as Mayor of London and Member of Parliament by intentionally misleading the public with regards to how much money the UK spends on EU membership.
Westminster Magistrates’ Court has ruled that Ball v Johnson’s first court appearance will take place today at 2pm.
The first hearing will be held in private with a second, public hearing, set to occur either immediately afterwards or in the following few days.
HOW CAN BALL DO THIS?
In England, anyone can take a private criminal prosecution if the Crown Prosecution Service refuses to proceed with charges against an individual. The prosecution has to go before magistrates for their approval, but if permitted, a full criminal case will result.
Ball has raised £370,000 for the costs of the case, and is out to set a precedent that could be followed worldwide. He basically wants to stop politicians from telling lies.
HE’S MAD, THEN?
No, he’s deadly serious. He states: ‘I believe that when politicians lie democracy dies. If a company director lies to shareholders about financial matters they can be prosecuted. If a self employed person lies to HMRC about their spending or income they can be prosecuted. If a member of the public lies to the police about an ongoing investigation they can be prosecuted. This is because society and public trust cannot function based upon false information. So, why shouldn’t a politician be prosecuted for abusing public trust by lying about public spending figures?’
‘This case is a world first, it has never happened before. A Member of Parliament has never been prosecuted for misconduct in public office based upon alleged lying to the public.
‘My backers and I aspire to set a precedent in the UK common law making it illegal for an elected representative to lie to the public about financial matters. This would be the beginning of the end of lying in politics in the UK. Because of how the English common law works it’s possible that such a precedent could be internationally persuasive by influencing the law in Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Canada and India’.
WHAT’S THE LIKELY IMPACT?
If the prosecution is allowed, and that’s a big if, it will stop Boris’s Tory leadership campaign in its tracks. If not, Johnson will just laugh it off as usual.
WHAT’S BORIS SAYING?
Unusually for him, not a lot. He knows this is a serious problem, not just for him but all politicians who tell porkies.
WHAT ABOUT HIS CHUMS?
The usual suspects have been queuing up to help him. The Spectator, for instance, defended their former editor by suggesting that the anti-Johnson faction should be careful about what they wish for.
“Next in the dock, surely,” wrote Ross Clark, “will be George Osborne for his claim that a vote for Brexit would result in unemployment rising by between 500,000 and 800,000 within two years (in the event unemployment fell to a 45 year low).
“And what about Nick Clegg who claimed in 2016 that the brief disappearance of Marmite from the shelves in 2016 in a contractual dispute between the manufacturers and Tesco was a foretaste of food shortages to come if we leave the EU without a trade deal? Both claims might struggle to stand up to examination that they were based on sound facts and reasoning.”
Clark makes a good point. But here in Scotland we would surely answer thus - drag them all into the courts and sack the unionist lot of them.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel