BORIS Johnson has been accused of trying to “intimidate” the Commons committee investigating whether or not he knowingly misled Parliament over Partygate. 

The comment from Chris Bryant, the chair of the privileges committee came after a leading QC called the inquiry “unfair” and “fundamentally flawed.”

MPs are probing whether Mr Johnson lied when he told the Commons that “all guidance was followed in No 10” and that “no Covid rules were broken”.

Police have since issued 126 fines to people in Whitehall for breaking Covid rules.

If the committee finds Mr Johnson in contempt he could be suspended from the Commons.

If his suspension lasts ten days or more, his constituents could petition for a by-election.

The committee has previously said that the Prime Minister does not need to have knowingly misled the Commons to be found in contempt. 

Instead, they are following the interpretation of the rules by senior Commons official Eve Samson, Clerk of the Journals, who said that intention was “not relevant” to making a decision on whether a contempt has been committed.

However, in a legal opinion commissioned by the Cabinet Office, Lord Pannick said for MPs to prove Mr Johnson was in contempt of Parliament it would be “necessary to establish that he intended to mislead the House”.

The lawyer said that “the threat of contempt proceedings for unintentional mistakes would have a seriously chilling effect on all members”.

He said a court would declare the Privileges Committee’s approach to the inquiry as “unlawful”.

However, because of parliamentary privilege, the committee’s decisions cannot be challenged in court.

Lord Pannick said: “In our opinion, the committee is proposing to adopt an approach to the substantive issues which is wrong in principle in important respects, and the committee is also proposing to adopt an unfair procedure.

“But for parliamentary privilege, a court hearing a judicial review brought by Mr Johnson would in our view declare the approach taken by the committee to be unlawful.”

He also criticised the committee’s decision to allow witnesses to give evidence anonymously.

 

MPs have said this could be because those with evidence may not want to come forward if they know their identities will be revealed.

Lord Pannick said: “That is not sufficient to allow for anonymity in a criminal trial. And that is because it is unfair to the defendant. It is impossible to understand why such unfairness should be tolerated in the present context.”

The report was seized on by allies of the Prime Minister. 

Nadine Dorries tweeted: "This isn’t about party gate. This isn't for Boris, but for all future PMs and MPs."

If they agree that the investigation is unfair, they can stop it, as long as MPs agree. 

Tory leadership frontrunner Liz Truss has previously said she would vote against the inquiry.

Mr Bryant, who recused himself from the probe after criticising Mr Johnson, dismissed Lord Pannick’s legal opinion as “disgraceful bullying”.

“You would have thought that Boris Johnson would want to clear his name in front of the Privileges Committee instead of trying to intimidate it,” he wrote in a series of tweets.

“There is no danger of ministers being cowed by this inquiry – although of course it would be good if they were careful that what they say to Parliament is true and accurate – as the House will always recognise an honest mistake quickly corrected…

“It’s time this disgraceful bullying stopped. Let’s hear and see the evidence. If Johnson has a good case to make, he’ll be vindicated. If not, he should take his punishment”.

 

Liberal Democrat cabinet spokesperson Christine Jardine said: "People are tired of these expensive attempts by this government to manufacture ways for Boris Johnson to wriggle out of any consequences of his actions.”