THE UK Government has won a High Court ruling over Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to back Home Secretary Priti Patel following accusations of bullying.
The FDA Union launched judicial review proceedings in February over the Prime Minister’s move last year to disregard the findings of his adviser on ministerial standards in order to back the Home Secretary.
Johnson’s decision to ignore the conclusions of the report led its author, Sir Alex Allan, to resign from his position as independent advisor on the ministerial code in November 2020.
Allan had found that Patel had been engaging in behaviour, such as shouting and swearing, “that can be described as bullying”. One occasion reportedly saw an official collapse after a particularly confrontational meeting with her.
Allan said that she had therefore breached the ministerial code, even if unintentionally.
However, as the sole arbiter of the rules, Johnson decided otherwise. He said she had not broken the code and told Tory MPs to “form a square around the Prittster” in order to defend the Home Secretary.
In a ruling at the High Court on Monday, Lord Justice Lewis concluded that Johnson had not misdirected himself as to the provisions of the Ministerial Code when reaching his decision.
The judge, sitting with Mrs Justice Steyn, said: “The question for this court is whether the Prime Minister proceeded on the basis that conduct would not fall within the description of bullying within paragraph 1.2 of the Ministerial Code if the person concerned was unaware of, or did not intend, the harm or offence caused.
“Reading the statement [made by Johnson] as a whole, and in context, we do not consider that the Prime Minister misdirected himself in that way.”
Lawyers for the FDA, which represents senior public servants, argued Johnson “misinterpreted” the term “bullying” in the Ministerial Code when deciding if Patel’s treatment of civil servants breached its standards.
They alleged he made a “misdirection of law” in reaching his decision.
Lawyers for Johnson argued that the FDA’s claim was “not justiciable” and that there had been “no error of law”.
They said the Ministerial Code “does not create or impose any legal duties on ministers or the Prime Minister”, is “not required by law”, and its contents are “not regulated by law”.
The code is a “political document” and “not about protecting the rights of civil servants” who still have access “to all the employment law rights”, the Prime Minister’s lawyer argued.
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