No.10 Refuses To Back Raab For Saying Partygate Fines Mean Law Has Been Broken

Downing Street declines to say whether it agreed with the justice secretary that regulations had been breached.
Downing Street said it "respects the position" of the Met Police but declined to agree with Raab.
Downing Street said it "respects the position" of the Met Police but declined to agree with Raab.
Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Downing Street has refused to say whether it agrees with Dominic Raab that the Met’s decision to issue partygate fines meant the law had been broken.

Scotland Yard said on Tuesday that 20 fixed penalty notices were being issued in relation to events in Downing Street and Whitehall, with more expected to follow.

No.10 has repeatedly declined to say whether the issuing of fixed penalty notices (FPNs) meant the law had been breached — but said it “respects” the Met’s decision.

But asked about the Met update on Tuesday, Raab, the justice secretary, said the fact that 20 fixed penalty notices are to be issued meant coronavirus regulations had been breached.

He told Sky News: “Inevitably fixed penalty notices [are issued to] those that have breached the regulations.

“We stand by and support the fact that there should be the Met process, the Sue Gray process and accountability.

“The prime minister has already taken responsibility for things that shouldn’t have happened in No 10.

“He has apologised for it, and more than that he has overhauled No 10.

“Of course we wait to see the outcome of the conclusions of the Met process.”

Raab’s position appears to put him at odds with Downing Street, which repeatedly refused to confirm whether the issuing of FPNs meant the law had been broken.

“We are maintaining our position,” Boris Johnson’s official spokesman said.

“There is an ongoing process here. The Met have come to a conclusion and have started a process which relates to 20 fines, and we respect that.

“We will not be commenting further on the detail of what happened until the investigation is concluded.

“It simply would not be right for me to give the prime minister’s view in the midst of an ongoing Met Police investigation.”

The Met’s update has put partygate firmly back on the political agenda after the prime minister was granted a reprieve from his leadership troubles following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Before the crisis unfolded, the PM was facing public calls from his own MPs to resign. Some even went public with the fact that they had submitted a letter of no confidence in his leadership to the 1922 backbench committee of MPs.

The Labour Party said the issuing of 20 police fines “proves that there has been criminality” in Downing Street.

A party spokesman said: “What is totally untenable is for… Downing Street to sort of refuse to acknowledge what is a statement of fact and law – and that is that the issuing of 20 fixed penalty notices proves that there has been criminality in Boris Johnson’s Downing Street.”

The Met said it would refer 20 FPNs to the Acro Criminal Records Office — the body responsible for issuing fines.

Any fines are expected to be around £100 and No10 has pledged to reveal if Johnson himself is fined.

Accepting an FPN is not the same as receiving a criminal conviction, and they do not appear as part of a person’s criminal record.

However, accepting an FPN and paying it is an acknowledgment that the law has been broken.

Labour said government ministers should be named if fined by police but that it was not “in the business of calling for individual civil servants to lose their jobs”.

Asked if it is right for people receiving fixed-penalty notices to remain anonymous, the spokesman said: “I mean, I think people are entitled to that, and that’s the position.

“As I say, it is clearly different, I think, when it comes to people who are in leadership roles, whether that is, for example, the cabinet secretary or government ministers.”

On whether Boris Johnson’s wife, Carrie, should remain anonymous in the event she receives a fine, he said: “I would have thought that that would be one that would be in the public interest, given that the events involve the prime minister.”

Close

What's Hot