POLICE do not plan to undertake a formal investigation into the party at No 10 that broke lockdown rules in May 2020 unless an internal probe finds evidence of potential criminal offences.
Senior civil servant Sue Gray is examining a series of parties and gatherings held in No 10 and Whitehall in 2020 while coronavirus restrictions were in force.
The Metropolitan Police said it will only consider whether to launch its own investigation if Gray's internal probe, "identifies evidence of behaviour that is potentially a criminal offence".
That's despite Boris Johnson apologising for attending a “bring your own booze” party in the Downing Street garden during the first coronavirus lockdown, but insisted he believed it was a work event and could “technically” have been within the rules.
The prospect of a police investigation had led to the possibility that the inquiry could be paused, but a Scotland Yard statement said: “The Met has ongoing contact with the Cabinet Office in relation to this inquiry.
“If the inquiry identifies evidence of behaviour that is potentially a criminal offence it will be passed to the Met for further consideration.”
WATCH: Sky News host comes up with ridiculous excuse for parties at No 10
An leaked email, sent by the PM's principal private secretary Martin Reynolds, urged 100 staff to "make the most of the lovely weather" by attending "socially distanced drinks" in the No 10 garden.
The move comes as lawyers warned a failure to investigate the party be unlawful.
Good Law Project wrote on Twitter: “The Met seem to be operating a two-tier system, with one rule for those in power and one rule for everyone else. Enough. We're suing.”
Elsewhere, they added: “In what other crime would police decline to investigate because the suspect assured them no rules had been broken?
“It is not good enough for the Met to delegate their investigative duties to the press and civil servants. We don’t believe they would make such concessions for anyone else accused of breaking the law.”
READ MORE: Met Police sued over refusal to investigate lockdown-busting parties at No 10
The non-profit said they had instructed Bindmans LLP, and Danny Friedman QC and Adam Wagner are acting as counsel.
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