Met Police: Investigate the Downing Street Christmas Party

by Good Law Project

Met Police: Investigate the Downing Street Christmas Party

by Good Law Project
Good Law Project
Case Owner
Good Law Project uses the law for a better world.
22
days to go
£97,627
pledged of £100,000 stretch target from 4,945 pledges
Pledge now
Good Law Project
Case Owner
Good Law Project uses the law for a better world.
Pledge now

This case is raising funds for its stretch target. Your pledge will be collected within the next 24-48 hours (and it only takes two minutes to pledge!)

Latest: Jan. 14, 2022

Response now in from the Met Police

We wrote to the Met yesterday after media reports that they had decided not to investigate the notorious 20 May 2020 No 10 garden party, which was attended by the Prime Minister. We have now received…

Read more

In the very building where the rules were being made, were they also being broken? 

In 2020, as the country went into a strict Covid-19 lockdown, No 10 staff were reportedly having Christmas parties. And videos have emerged of those closest to Boris Johnson, including his then press secretary, laughing as they practised how to lie to us about it.

Multiple reports have emerged that parties took place in November and December in Government buildings - clearly breaching ‘tier 3’ restrictions. Yet, unbelievably, the Met Police claim there isn’t enough evidence to open a criminal investigation into this.

So before Christmas, we wrote to the Met asking them to explain or reverse their refusal to investigate these alleged unlawful parties. Since then, yet another Downing Street Party has come to light.

We’ve now received the Met’s response - but it raises more questions than it answers, and strongly suggests their refusal to investigate the alleged No 10 parties was unlawful.

The Met says they concluded that further investigatory work would be required before they could decide whether to bring charges, but rather than attempting to do this, they just closed the case.

Their attempts to justify that decision really don’t make sense. First, they say they relied on the Government’s assurances that no rules had been broken. Then, they say there would have been no point in interviewing No 10 staff about the parties because they would have refused to answer questions that exposed them to a risk of prosecution.

In what other crime would police decline to investigate because the suspect assured them no rules had been broken? And those justifications can’t both be true; if no rules were broken, there’s no risk of self-incrimination.

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.

The Met seem to be operating a two-tier system, with one rule for those in power and one rule for everyone else. We think that sets a dangerous precedent, with serious implications for public trust.

We’re issuing formal legal proceedings to force the Met to revisit their decision. If we win, it could have a knock-on effect for all the parties held at Downing Street. Those in power broke the rules - repeatedly. They should face the same consequences as everyone else.

If you are able, please donate to help make this case possible. Thank you.

Details: We’ve instructed Bindmans LLP and Danny Friedman QC and Adam Wagner are acting as counsel.

10% of the sums raised will go to Good Law Project so that we can continue to use the law for a better world. It is our policy to only raise sums that we reasonably anticipate could be spent on this litigation. If for some reason we don’t spend all the money raised on this case, for instance if the Met Police backs down or we win, the donations will go towards supporting other litigation we bring.

Recent contributions

Be a promoter

Your share on Facebook could raise £26 for the case

I'll share on Facebook
Update 2

Good Law Project

Jan. 14, 2022

Response now in from the Met Police

We wrote to the Met yesterday after media reports that they had decided not to investigate the notorious 20 May 2020 No 10 garden party, which was attended by the Prime Minister. We have now received a response. Contrary to those reports the Met have confirmed that they haven’t made a decision about whether to investigate the 20 May 2020 party yet.

The Met say that all available material relating to the 20 May party, including the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament on Wednesday, has been passed to a specialist team for assessment. And no decision has yet been reached.

We will carry on holding the Met’s feet to the fire until they live up to their responsibilities and conduct a full investigation. There cannot, must not, be two systems of criminal justice. In a way, what the Met has permitted - parallel criminal law regimes, a normal one for normal people, and a special one for special people - is as profound an attack on the rule of law as Johnson's suspension of Parliament was on democracy.

We are deeply concerned about how willing the Met seems to be to tolerate this destruction of public confidence in the law, to defer to the powerful.

You can read our letter to the Met Police here. And the Met's response today here

Update 1

Good Law Project

Jan. 13, 2022

The Met can’t keep turning a blind eye

Reports differ about the stance of the Metropolitan Police towards the notorious ‘Bring Your Own Booze Party’ held on the 20 May. There are reports the Met has already decided not to investigate whether a criminal act was committed by attendees.

We have today written to the Met to inform them that, unless they agree to open an investigation, we will judicial review that failure, alongside the failure to investigate the 18 December party.

It is intolerable, and we should not tolerate, the operation of separate criminal justice systems, a soft one for those with power and influence and a harsher one for those without.

The statue of justice shows her blind to social status – not winking at those in power.

You can read our letter to the Met Police here.

    There are no public comments on this case page.