BORIS Johnson will be summonsed to court to face accusations of misconduct in public office over claims he lied when he said the UK gave the EU £350 million a week.
The favourite to win the Tory leadership race faces a private prosecution by campaigner Marcus Ball over the EU funding claim – which was emblazoned on the red campaign bus used by Vote Leave during the referendum, with the slogan saying "We send the EU £350 million a week let's fund our NHS instead".
Lawyers representing Ball lodged an application to summons Johnson to court, claiming he had deliberately misled the public during the Brexit referendum campaign in 2016 and then repeated the statement during the 2017 general election.
READ MORE: Boris Johnson's court appearance: everything you need to know
In a written decision, District Judge Margot Coleman said Johnson will be summonsed to court.
She wrote: "The allegations which have been made are unproven accusations and I do not make any findings of fact.
"Having considered all the relevant factors I am satisfied that this is a proper case to issue the summons as requested for the three offences as drafted. The charges are indictable only.
"This means the proposed defendant will be required to attend this court for a preliminary hearing, and the case will then be sent to the Crown Court for trial.
"The charges can only be dealt with in the Crown Court."
The offence of misconduct in public office carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, according to the Crown Prosecution Service website.
In her ruling, Coleman said: "The applicant's case is there is ample evidence that the proposed defendant knew that the statements were false.
"One example is given that in a televised interview in May 2016 the proposed defendant stated, 'we send the EU £10 billion per year' and that therefore he knew that the £350 million per week figure (£20 billion per year) was incorrect."
A section of the judge's ruling included Johnson's position, which described the application as a "(political) stunt".
His position in summary said: "This application is brought for political purposes. The position presented to the Court is that this is a disinterested attempt to improve the standards of political debate."
It added: "The application is a (political) stunt. Its true purpose is not that it should succeed, but that it should be made at all. And made with as much public fanfare as the prosecution can engender."
READ MORE: Expert pollster: No-deal Johnson would give Scotland independence majority
Lewis Power QC, representing Ball, told Westminster Magistrates' Court last week: "Democracy demands responsible and honest leadership from those in public office.
"The conduct of the proposed defendant Boris Johnson was both irresponsible and dishonest. It was, we say, criminal."
Power said the prosecution's application was not brought to undermine the result of the Brexit referendum and was not about what could have been done with the saved money.
He added: "The allegation with which this prosecution is concerned, put simply, is Johnson repeatedly misrepresented the amount that the UK sends to Europe each week.
"It is concerned with one infamous statement: 'We send the EU £350 million a week'.
"The UK has never sent, given or provided £350 million a week to Europe - that statement is simply not ambiguous."
Adrian Darbishire QC, representing Johnson, said his client denies acting dishonestly.
Ball has raised more than £200,000 through a "Brexit Justice" crowdfunding campaign to pay for the private prosecution.
Originally from Norfolk, he has worked full-time on the prosecution case since June 2016.
Ball previously said he and his backers "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".
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