# Matter referred on 21 April 2022 (conduct of Rt Hon Boris Johnson): Final Report/Chapter 2
## 2 The Rules and Guidance, and what Mr Johnson saw or knew2 The Rules and Guidance, and what Mr Johnson saw or knew

20. In this section of our report we will consider the extent of Mr Johnson’s direct knowledge of particular gatherings in No. 10 on the basis of his personal experience, and set this in the context of the Covid Rules and Guidance in force at the time of each gathering. We also highlight contemporary statements made over this period by Mr Johnson at press conferences and to the House, which evidence his knowledge of the Covid Rules and Guidance in force at the time. We have focussed on six gatherings: those on 20 May 2020, 19 June 2020, 13 and 27 November 2020, 18 December 2020 and 14 January 2021. Mr Johnson attended five of these gatherings, and was briefly in close proximity to the sixth (that on 18 December 2020).
21. In the next section of this report, dealing with the assertions Mr Johnson later gave to the House about compliance with Covid Rules and Guidance, we consider whether, in the light of what he had seen and known at the time of each gathering, as well as of subsequent developments including assurances he was given by others, it is credible that Mr Johnson believed, and had given sufficient consideration to, the assertions he was making.
22. Over the period from May 2020 to January 2021 (the period covering the above events) the Rules and the Guidance imposing restrictions to prevent the spread of Covid varied. Nevertheless, regulations consistently imposed restrictions on gatherings between people from different households with a limited number of exceptions. These exceptions included where a gathering was “essential” for work purposes under regulations in force before 1 June 2020, or “reasonably necessary” for work purposes under regulations in force from 1 June 2020. Between May 2020 and April 2021, workplace Guidance specified maintaining social distancing “where possible”. At the material time, No. 10 Downing Street circulated all staff working in those offices with the Rules and Guidance that they should follow, including social distancing requirements.

### Mr Johnson’s knowledge of individual gatheringsMr Johnson’s knowledge of individual gatherings
#### Gathering on 20 May 2020Gathering on 20 May 2020

23. In May 2020, the Rules and Guidance in force for the prevention of the spread of Covid included restrictions on gatherings of more than two people, and stated that only ​absolutely necessary participants should usually physically attend meetings. Mr Johnson told the House of Commons on 11 May 2020 that, “If you must go to work and cannot work from home, you should do so, provided […] that your workplace is covid secure. We are publishing further Guidance on that”. He also told the House on 11 May that people should be “limiting contact with others”.
24. On Wednesday 20 May 2020, Mr Johnson attended a gathering in the garden of No 10. The invitation list was extensive and the planning and communications are evidence that the purpose of the gathering was social. We have evidence that the email invitation for this gathering, which was sent by Mr Johnson’s Principal Private Secretary, Martin Reynolds, was sent to “200-odd people”, and that it encouraged staff who attended to “bring your own booze!” Alcohol was provided by staff. Fixed Penalty Notices were issued to a number of those who attended.
25. We have evidence that some officials and advisers felt this event should not go ahead. Mr Johnson’s then Director of Communications, Lee Cain, describes the tone of the email invitation in the evidence he gave us as “clearly social and in breach of covid Guidance” and says he raised concerns about it with Martin Reynolds. Another official has given evidence to us saying, “I heard that there were so many people who were unhappy about the party that they were not going to go” and that they themselves said to another official that they “thought it was madness.”
26. Mr Cain stated in evidence: “I do not recall if I personally had a conversation with the PM about the garden party but it would have been highly unusual for me not to have raised a potentially serious communications risk with the PM directly”. Mr Reynolds, with whom Mr Cain had raised his concerns, stated in evidence “it is possible” that he (Reynolds) raised concerns with Mr Johnson. However, he added that “it seems more likely that I believed that any issue had been resolved. If I had spoken with the Prime Minister about the event, I believe I would have flagged the comms risk, not that the event was against the Rules (which I did not believe to be the case).” ​27. We have evidence that trestle tables were set up for drinks to be laid out. We also have evidence that around 40 people were in attendance at this gathering, and that attendees who were there at the same time as Mr Johnson included Mr Johnson’s wife as well as advisers who were not from No. 10 but from other government departments. Lee Cain in his evidence stated that “it was clear observing all who attended and the layout of the event that this was purely a social function”, though we note that in response to this evidence Mr Johnson told us he did not share that view, “and that is certainly not what he [Lee Cain] said at the time”.
28. In his written evidence Mr Johnson states that he did not believe that the event broke the Rules or Guidance in force at the time, noting that the Guidance recommended “holding meetings outdoors or in well-ventilated rooms whenever possible”. He was aware that there was food and drink at the gathering, but did not consider this was incompatible with the Rules or Guidance. He attended for less than half an hour, from 6.02 till 6.30 pm. He cannot recall how many people were there, but notes that one of our witnesses states there were only 10 people in the garden when he arrived. He states that:
   I understood this to be a socially-distanced outdoor meeting to boost staff morale and teamworking after what had been a very difficult period. […] In my view, an opportunity to thank staff and boost morale was essential for work purposes. […] no-one at the time expressed to me any concerns about whether the event complied with the Rules or Guidance.
29. Mr Johnson drew attention to his apology to Parliament on 12 January 2022 when he had said: “I believed implicitly that this was a work event, but with hindsight, I should have sent everyone back inside. I should have found some other way to thank them, and I should have recognised that even if it could be said technically to fall within the Guidance, there would be millions and millions of people who simply would not see it that way.” In his written evidence Mr Johnson added:
   I wish, in retrospect, that we had given some thought to how these events could be perceived. We should have found a way to make clearer that these were work events […] Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But it remains the case that at the time I believed that the gathering was consistent with the Rules and Guidance. For the reasons I have given, I still believe so, at least in relation to the short period during which I attended the event.
30. In his oral evidence, Mr Johnson told us that he did not see Martin Reynolds’ email inviting people to the gathering which invited people to bring their own alcohol, and that he was not aware of the contents of the email. We note that even if this was the case, Mr Johnson would have become aware of Mr Reynolds’ email before giving evidence to us, because it was leaked to the media in January 2022 and referred to in Sue Gray’s final report in May 2022. Notwithstanding this indication of the social purpose of the gathering, Mr Johnson continues to maintain it was essential for work purposes (see paragraph 32 below). ​31. Asked to comment on Lee Cain’s statement that he might have had a conversation with Mr Johnson about the event, Mr Johnson stated that Mr Cain had not raised concerns about the gathering with him at the time, and that the concerns Mr Cain had raised with others were about the “optics” of the event rather than about a breach of the Rules or Guidance. Asked about Mr Reynolds’ statement that it was “possible” he had raised concerns with Mr Johnson, Mr Johnson replied “No–not that I can remember, no”. Mr Johnson confirmed he had seen the trestle tables set up in the garden, but did not remember whether there was alcohol on them.
32. Asked about the issue of Fixed Penalty Notices to people present at the gathering, Mr Johnson stated:
   I want to dispute the idea that it was not an essential gathering or not [a] gathering that was reasonably necessary for work purposes. I don’t know why the FPNs were issued, but it may be that they were issued to people who had not a good enough reason to come in from home to that gathering, or people who had come from elsewhere to that gathering. But my firm impression is–and I think it is certainly still the case that Martin Reynolds believes–that that gathering was within the Rules and, indeed, within the Guidance.
33. Mr Johnson told us that “people who say that that event was a purely social gathering are quite wrong.” He reiterated his belief that the gathering was “essential” for work purposes, stating that its purpose was:
   To thank staff, who had been working very hard on Covid. […] This was a day when the Cabinet Secretary had just stepped down. I think the civil servants needed to feel that […] the business of government was being carried on, and they needed to feel thanked and motivated for their work.
34. In supplementary written evidence, Mr Johnson corrected his statement that the Cabinet Secretary “had just stepped down”:
   This was incorrect. The Cabinet Secretary, Mark Sedwill, did not resign until 29 June 2020. However, he and I had discussed his potential resignation around the time of the 20 May 2020 event, which is what I had in mind when answering the question.
35. In summary, Mr Johnson claims that concerns by No. 10 officials about the 20 May 2020 gathering were not raised with him at the time, and in any case related to the “optics” of the event rather than whether Rules or Guidance had actually been or were likely to be breached. He claims that at the time that he attended the event, he considered the gathering was “essential” for work purposes and did not breach the Rules or Guidance, and that he continues to believe that, despite the Metropolitan Police having issued Fixed Penalty Notices to some attendees. ​ 36. We conclude that, on the basis of the evidence we have received, some senior No 10 officials were concerned about the social nature of the 20 May 2020 gathering and were reluctant for it to go ahead. It is not clear whether those concerns were raised with Mr Johnson at the time. The social nature of the gathering was indicated by the high number of people invited, with some attendees from outside No. 10 as well as Mr Johnson’s wife (who we consider it is obvious cannot be described as an “absolutely necessary participant”), and the installation in the garden of trestle tables with alcohol available. There is evidence that the number of people in attendance increased during the time that Mr Johnson was at the gathering.
37. We note that for the gathering to have been compliant with the Rules, it would have had to have been “essential” for work purposes. We do not consider that a social gathering held purely for the purpose of improving staff morale can be regarded as having been essential for work purposes. Moreover, as we set out in further detail below, we do not believe Mr Johnson would have advised the public that this was the case had he been asked this at the time.

#### Gathering on 19 June 2020Gathering on 19 June 2020

38. In June 2020, the Rules and Guidance in force for the prevention of the spread of Covid included restrictions on indoor gatherings of two or more people and maintaining social distancing in the workplace of 2 metres wherever possible, and that only absolutely necessary participants should usually physically attend meetings. On 10 June 2020, Mr Johnson had said at a Covid press conference, “I urge everyone to continue to show restraint and respect the Rules which are designed to keep us all safe […] So please, to repeat what you’ve heard so many times before, stay alert, maintain social distancing and keep washing your hands.”
39. Just over a week later, on Friday 19 June 2020, Mr Johnson attended a gathering in the Cabinet Room to celebrate his birthday. A cake and alcohol were provided. Some attendees, including Mr Johnson, received Fixed Penalty Notices in relation to this event. Mr Johnson accepted the FPN.
40. Photographs were taken of the event which were provided to the Committee by the Cabinet Office. These show that the gathering was not socially distanced, and that it was attended by at least 17 people other than Mr Johnson, despite internal No. 10 guidance ​stating that as part of their specific mitigations there should be no more than 15 people in the Cabinet Room. We also received evidence that the attendees included individuals who were not work colleagues of Mr Johnson: Mr Johnson’s wife and his interior designer.
41. In his written evidence Mr Johnson addressed the fact that he, together with the current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, was issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice by the Metropolitan Police in relation to this event:
   I have accepted the conclusion of the Police that my participation in the gathering in the Cabinet Room on my birthday, which I knew nothing about in advance, was unlawful. However, to this day it remains unclear to me–and I believe the Prime Minister may feel the same–how precisely we committed an offence under the Regulations. I have never been provided with any rationale by the Police, in particular how some individuals that attended did not receive a Fixed Penalty Notice.
   It never occurred to me then […] that the event on 19 June 2020 was not in compliance with the Rules or the Guidance. Nor do I consider it reasonable to conclude that I should have known it at the time. I was in the Cabinet Room for a work meeting and was joined by a small gathering of people, all of whom lived or were working in the building. We had a sandwich lunch together and they wished me Happy Birthday. I was not told in advance that this would happen. No cake was eaten, and no-one even sang “happy birthday”. The primary topic of conversation was the response to Covid-19.
42. In oral evidence Mr Johnson stated that receiving an FPN for this event “boggled my mind because I could not understand why I had got it”.
43. Asked in oral evidence why he thought that the gathering was compliant with the Covid Rules, Mr Johnson replied, “I thought it was reasonably necessary for work purposes because I was standing at my desk, surrounded by officials who had been asked to come and wish me a happy birthday. I had only recently recovered from an illness–Covid–and it seemed to me a perfectly proper thing to do. We were about to have another meeting, and they were largely the same officials”.
44. When it was put to Mr Johnson that “presumably your wife and the contractor [the interior designer] were not attending that meeting”, Mr Johnson responded:
   It is one of the peculiarities of No. 10 that the Prime Minister and his family live in the same building. My understanding of the Rules is that the Prime Minister’s family is entitled to use every part of that building.
46. Asked to comment on whether it would have been obvious that the event was in breach of the Guidance, in light of two photographs received by the Committee showing that the gathering was not socially distanced, as well as that fact that it was attended by those whose presence was not absolutely necessary, Mr Johnson replied:
   No. It is a measure of how un-obvious it was to me that this was any kind of breach that the press office publicised this meeting in The Times. […] I had absolutely no sense while this event was taking place, and, indeed, at any time later, that it was in contravention of either the Rules or the Guidance. No one, before I spoke in the House of Commons, suggested to me that it was. […] It did not strike me as being anything other than an ordinary, common or garden workplace event.
47. Evidence submitted by Jack Doyle, Mr Johnson’s Press Secretary at the time of this gathering and later Director of Communications, makes clear that at a later stage he was doubtful about the compliance of the gathering of 19 June 2020 with the Covid Rules. In WhatsApp messages with other No. 10 officials on 25 January 2022 he discusses that gathering and states that he was “struggling to come up with a way” that the gathering was within the Rules, and he was “not sure” it would “work” to suggest that it was reasonably necessary for work purposes.
48. We conclude that there is evidence that the gathering in the Cabinet Room to celebrate Mr Johnson’s birthday on 19 June 2020 was attended by at least 17 people other than Mr Johnson, including by individuals who were not his work colleagues, and that it was not socially distanced. We note that Mr Johnson did not explain why he believed the event was “reasonably necessary for work purposes” other than to say that it took place immediately before a work meeting, and that “it seemed to me […] perfectly proper” for officials to be “asked to come and wish me a happy birthday” which we do not regard as convincing. Mr Johnson was also unable to explain why he considered his wife and interior designer “absolutely necessary participants” in a work-related meeting. His assertion that the Prime Minister’s family are entitled to use every part of the building does not constitute an explanation. We note that the Metropolitan Police issued Mr Johnson a Fixed Penalty Notice in connection with this event. Mr Johnson accepts that his attendance was unlawful but states that he is not clear precisely how he committed an offence. We note that he had the right in law to decline to accept the FPN if he had wished to assert he had committed no offence, but that he chose not to do so. ​

#### Gathering on 13 November 2020Gathering on 13 November 2020

49. In November 2020, the Rules and Guidance in force for the prevention of the spread of Covid included restrictions on indoor gatherings of two or more people and maintaining social distancing of 2 metres or 1 metre with risk mitigations in the workplace wherever possible. At the Covid press conferences over this period, Mr Johnson regularly repeated the phrase, “Hands, face, space” while standing at podiums bearing this phrase. On 9 November, Mr Johnson said at a Covid press conference that “Neither mass testing nor progress on vaccines […] are at the present time a substitute for the national restrictions, for social distancing […] and all the rest. So it is all the more important to follow the Rules.”
50. Four days later, on Friday 13 November 2020, Mr Johnson attended an impromptu leaving gathering for his Director of Communications, Lee Cain, in the vestibule of the Press Office. Between 15 and 20 people were present. Mr Johnson joined the gathering and made a speech. Photographs were taken of the event which were provided to the Committee by the Cabinet Office. One of them shows Mr Johnson with at least six other people standing in close proximity. Fixed Penalty Notices were issued in relation to this gathering for breaching the Rules, but not to Mr Johnson.
51. Mr Johnson told us in oral evidence that at the event on 13 November, “we followed the Guidance completely”. He said that “I don’t accept that people were not making an effort to distance themselves socially from each other”. He drew attention to the provision in the Guidance that 1-metre distancing should be maintained, with mitigations, where 2-metre distancing was not possible. In relation to mitigations, he said:
   I knew from my direct personal experience that we were doing a huge amount to stop the spread of covid within the building. We had sanitisers, windows were kept open, we had people working outdoors wherever they could, we had Zoom meetings, we had restrictions on the number of people in rooms, we had perspex screens between desks and, above all […] we had testing.
   I accept that perfect social distancing […] is not being observed [i.e. in the photographs], but that does not mean that what we were doing, in my view, is incompatible with the Guidance. The Guidance specifically allows for workplace freedoms to decide how to implement it, and the operative condition is “where possible”.
53. Mr Johnson said that mitigations at the event included the fact that “we avoided physical contact. For instance, as the Guidance says, we didn’t touch each other pens; we didn’t pass stuff to each other if we could possibly avoid it”. When it was put to him that “[p]resumably people were passing drinks to each other, because we’ve seen the picture–”, Mr Johnson replied, “Of course. This is Guidance, and I’m not going to pretend that it was enforced rigidly, but that is explicitly what the Guidance provides for”.
54. When pressed later in the questioning on the fact that no mitigations seemed to be evident in the photographs of the 13 November event, Mr Johnson said “Yes, and that is because that was the space where people congregated fast. If I wanted to get a message out, it was the natural place to do it.”
55. The Guidance in force at the time stated that “Where the social distancing guidelines cannot be followed in full, even through redesigning a particular activity, businesses should consider whether that activity needs to continue for the business to operate, and if so, take all the mitigating actions possible to reduce the risk of transmission between their staff”. In interpreting the Guidance as it stood in November 2020, the following points should therefore be borne in mind:
* If 2-metre distancing could not be achieved, then 1-metre distancing and mitigations was obligatory for social distancing to be said to have been achieved, and social distancing was not considered achieved if 1-metre distancing was maintained without mitigations.
* Mr Johnson was correct to state that, whether social distancing was being defined as 2 metres or as 1 metre with mitigations, the Guidance advised achieving social distancing “wherever possible”.
56. However, a gathering which was not socially distanced under the above interpretation was nonetheless only compliant with Guidance if (a) it was not possible to achieve social distancing by redesigning the activity or putting in place mitigations; (b) all possible actions to mitigate the risk of the transmission of the virus were being observed; and (c) the gathering constituted an activity that needed to continue for the business or organisation to operate.
​ 57. Turning to the Rules, Mr Johnson told us that the gathering on 13 November was “absolutely essential for work purposes” because:
   two senior members of staff–the effective chief of staff [Dominic Cummings] and the director of communications [Lee Cain]–had both left the building, or were about to leave the building, in pretty acrimonious circumstances, or what were potentially acrimonious circumstances. It was important for me to be there and to give reassurance.
58. He added that “it was necessary to steady the ship. It was necessary to show there was no rancour, and the business of the Government was being carried on. That is what we had to do.” He said: “I understand that people looking at that photograph will think that it looks like a social event. It was not a social event.” He later said: “I had to accept that, even though it was, I believe, within the Guidance and within the Rules, members of the public looking at it will have thought, ‘That looks to me like something he’s not allowing us to do.’ I felt that very keenly–in retrospect. I didn’t feel it at the time.”
59. Writing about events to mark the departure of staff in general, Mr Johnson stated:
   My view has always been that thanking and encouraging staff, and maintain morale at No 10, was absolutely essential for work purposes. That is especially so in the midst of a crisis as serious as the Covid-19 pandemic. When we gathered occasionally to mark the departure of a colleague, it was my duty as the Prime Minister to say a few words of thanks. That is the job of any leader.
60. Mr Johnson was asked “if you had been asked at a press conference, with your podium saying “Hands, face, space”, whether it was okay for organisations to hold unsocially distanced farewell gatherings in the workplace, what would you have said?” He replied, “I would have said that it is up to organisations, as the Guidance says, to decide how they are going to implement the Guidance. […] I would have said that the answer is that you should do what the Guidance says, and the Guidance says that where you put in mitigations, where you do what is possible, where you follow social distancing in a way that reflects the realities of your work space, that will be in compliance with the Guidance.”
61. In summary, Mr Johnson has argued that he did not believe the gathering on 13 November breached the covid Rules or Guidance because (in relation to the Rules) he considered the gathering essential for work purposes in order to maintain staff morale; and (in relation to the Guidance), although he acknowledges that 2-metre social distancing was not being observed, the Guidance allowed for a lesser degree of distancing if the activity was critical for the continued operation of the business or organisation and all possible mitigating actions had been taken.
62. There is no doubt that neither 2-metre nor 1-metre distancing was being observed at the gathering. In our inspection of the Press Office vestibule we established that the room measures around 5 metres by 6 metres. With between 15 and 20 people present it ​would not be possible to maintain social distancing in this space, and the photographs of the event which show Mr Johnson confirm that it was not maintained. We have seen no evidence for Mr Johnson’s suggestion that people were making an effort to distance themselves socially from each other and it does not seem consistent with the photographs seen by the Committee.
63. We see no evidence of mitigations being put in place. We consider that Mr Johnson’s reference to the existence of screens in the adjacent Press Office is irrelevant and a distraction as he knew that there were no screens in the vestibule where the event actually took place.
64. Mr Johnson argued that the gathering was “essential” for work purposes because of the need to maintain morale in the immediate aftermath of the potentially acrimonious departure of two senior members of staff. Even where the legal test of a gathering’s reasonable necessity for work purposes was met, the Guidance further required that “where the social distancing guidelines cannot be followed in full […] businesses should consider whether that activity needs to continue for the business to operate”.
65. We note that organisations across the UK were suffering severe staff morale pressures during the Covid pandemic; we do not consider that this in itself provided a licence for Mr Johnson’s conveniently flexible interpretation of the Rules on gatherings, or the Guidance on social distancing. We note that Mr Johnson equivocated when asked whether he would have condoned gatherings for this purpose in other organisations. In view of Mr Johnson’s repeated exhortations to the public to follow the Rules and Guidance, indicating the importance he attached to their being taken seriously, we do not believe that, if asked at the time whether unsocially distanced “leaving dos” to maintain staff morale were permitted under the Rules and Guidance in force at the time, he would have advised the British public that they were. We note that the fact that Fixed Penalty Notices were issued for this gathering supports the conclusion that such gatherings were, in fact, not permitted under the Rules then in force.
66. We conclude that there is photographic evidence of Mr Johnson’s presence at an event on 13 November 2020 where there was no social distancing; that no mitigations are visible in the photographs; and that the Covid Rules and Guidance at the time did not allow a socially undistanced event to proceed purely for the purpose of maintaining staff morale, and that this would have been clear to Mr Johnson.

#### Gathering on 27 November 2020Gathering on 27 November 2020

67. Two weeks after the gathering of 13 November 2020, on Friday 27 November 2020, Mr Johnson attended and gave a speech at an unplanned leaving gathering to thank a departing special adviser. This again took place in the vestibule to the Press Office. This is the only one of the six events we have focussed on in this report which was not the subject of Fixed Penalty Notices. We have included this event among those focussed on because of its significance in terms of its evidential value in considering the nature of gatherings in No 10 and compliance, or otherwise, with relevant Guidance.
​ 68. We received three witness statements attesting to a lack of social distancing at this event. Jack Doyle, who was Press Secretary at the time and subsequently Director of Communications, stated that there were “certainly more than 20” people in attendance (in a small room measuring about 5 metres by 6 metres). Another witness has stated that they could not make their way from their office through the vestibule because of the throng of people: “I stood on tiptoes and thought how do I get out? […] I remember vividly that it was about 4–5 people deep […] I remember thinking “I’d like to get out of my office and I can’t”. Another witness stated that Mr Johnson joked during this gathering that it was “probably the most unsocially distanced gathering in the UK right now”.
69. In his written evidence Mr Johnson stated that he did not remember making the remark about “the most unsocially distanced gathering” at this particular event, and “it seems unlikely given that it was, as [No. 10 official] says, a small and impromptu event”. However, he also stated that he “might well have made observations in speeches about social distancing”. He elaborated in oral evidence: “it is certainly likely that I would have drawn attention to the importance of social distancing, since that was very high in people’s minds.” In his written evidence he drew attention to the fact that the witness who referred to the alleged remark went on to state that Mr Johnson “had a glass of water in his hand, made a short speech and then went up to his flat. He was the most sensible person there to be honest.” Mr Johnson added that any observations he may have made about social distancing did not mean he thought the Guidance was contravened: “I did not believe that the Guidance required full social distancing at all times provided you did what you could overall, and put additional mitigations in place where social distancing was not possible”.
70. Mr Johnson repeated about this event his comments about ‘leaving gatherings’ in general:
   I would typically be told by one of my officials that a gathering would shortly be taking place to thank a member of staff who was departing. I would grab a piece of paper, and scrawl some things to say about that official’s contribution. When I arrived at the room, I would see the same people I worked with every day, in the same rooms that they normally worked in. […] When I looked around the room, I did not think anyone was breaking any Rules or Guidance: on the contrary, I thought that we were all doing our job.
71. Referring specifically to the gathering on 27 November, Mr Johnson wrote that he “briefly” attended the gathering, “made a short speech, and left after approximately 10 minutes”. He added: “I do not believe that anything that I saw in the short period of time that I was at the gathering was contrary to the Rules or Guidance”.
​ 72. In his oral evidence Mr Johnson disputed the number of people at the gathering. We received evidence that “certainly more than 20” people were present. Mr Johnson urged us to take account of the conclusions of the Sue Gray report which referred to “15 to 20 people” being present. He also drew attention to a No. 10 official’s evidence in which that witness stated that Mr Johnson’s speech at the event was very brief: he spoke for “[a]pproximately 45 seconds. Then I said something for about 15 seconds.” Asked to say whether he accepted the evidence of some witnesses that there was insufficient social distancing at the event, Mr Johnson replied, “I say that some of them do, some of them don’t”.
73. We conclude that Mr Johnson attended an impromptu event in the Press Office vestibule on 27 November 2020 at which there is evidence from some attendees that social distancing was not observed. One witness stated that there were “certainly more than 20” people in attendance. Another stated that Mr Johnson made a joke about the lack of social distancing. Mr Johnson draws attention to the Second Permanent Secretary’s conclusion that “15 to 20 people” were present. There is not a large gap between the two estimates and clearly no-one was taking an exact count of numbers. Even if it were at the lower estimate of 15, that was too many for social distancing of 1 metre, let alone 2 metres, in that space. We note further evidence that there was a large gathering of people in the vestibule, sufficient to make it difficult for a person to make their way through the room.
74. Mr Johnson stated that he was in attendance for about 10 minutes. This would have afforded him opportunity to observe a large gathering of people in the relatively small space of the vestibule. We have received no evidence that significant mitigations or efforts to maintain social distancing were in place at the event. We have noted earlier (see paragraphs 37 and 66) our conclusion that no reasonable reading of the Covid Guidance at the time would have considered a socially undistanced event purely for the purpose of maintaining staff morale permissible. ​

#### Gathering on 18 December 2020Gathering on 18 December 2020

75. In December 2020, the Rules and Guidance in force for the prevention of the spread of Covid included restrictions on indoor gatherings of two or more people and maintaining social distancing of 2 metres or 1 metre with risk mitigations in the workplace wherever possible. As we noted above, the previous month (on 9 November), Mr Johnson said at a Covid press conference that “Neither mass testing nor progress on vaccines […] are at the present time a substitute for the national restrictions, for social distancing […] and all the rest. So it is all the more important to follow the Rules.”
76. On Friday 18 December 2020, the No. 10 Press Office held “a planned drinks event with cheese and wine”. It was billed as a Christmas gathering and between 25 and 40 people attended.
77. We received evidence that the gathering began as an end-of-day catch-up but that“ [t]he drinks started after that, probably around 5pm”, that “[a]fter 6.30pm more people turned up across the house”, and that the event “ran on into the early hours–2am from memory”. The gathering was described in evidence we received as “beyond desk drinks”, and “far more relaxed than it should have been”, with people “shoulder to shoulder with each other”. One witness described the event as “[a] gathering rather than a party”, on the grounds that “[a] party has music and dancing, […] I don’t remember any music being on”. One No. 10 staff member who did not attend said they later heard that the gathering had “escalated” and “turned into a party”. Fixed Penalty Notices were issued to some of those who attended.
78. Mr Johnson did not attend this gathering but he was present in No. 10 throughout the day. His official diary records that after chairing a meeting in the Cabinet Room from 8.24 pm, he went up to his flat at 9.58 pm. The staircase to the flat begins next to the doorway leading through to the Press Office. During our site visit to No 10 we established that there is a clear line of view from the foot of the stairs into the Press Office. There are three rooms in a row starting from the staircase: first a small corridor or antechamber, then a vestibule, and then the Press Office itself. None of these rooms is large. The Press Office itself is filled with work stations, so the location which was habitually used for gatherings was the adjacent vestibule (which can be seen being used for this purpose in the photographs of the gathering on 13 November 2020). The vestibule is 4 or 5 metres away from the foot of the staircase.
​ 79. In written evidence Mr Johnson stated:
   I do not recollect seeing or hearing anything that could be described as a party. I do not recollect seeing anyone detectably under the influence of alcohol or hearing anything from my flat. As I have said, I was working and my mind was decisively elsewhere.
80. Referring to claims that there were regular Friday night “Press Office gatherings”, Mr Johnson stated that:
   I accept that I could see into the Press Office on my way to the flat, although my attention is often elsewhere when I am returning to the flat. Although I cannot recall any specific occasions, I may well have seen groups of people in the Press Office when going up to my flat. There would be nothing unusual or untoward about that. They were consistently working late during the Covid-19 pandemic and regularly would meet on Friday evenings to discuss and debrief the events of the week, where wine would be available. I did not ever hear anything from my flat from the Press Office.
81. When giving oral evidence Mr Johnson was asked, in relation to the gathering on 18 December, whether he was unaware of “the noise or the event taking place”. He replied:
   Absolutely. If I had looked, what I would have seen, I am sure, was people doing a huge amount of work on a very, very busy evening. Now, I didn’t look. I certainly have no memory of seeing any kind of party or illicit gathering going on in the press room on that evening. The first I heard about this–the first I knew about it–was when it was brought to my attention by Jack Doyle almost a year later.
82. We note that Mr Johnson himself, in private WhatsApp messages sent to his then press secretary Jack Doyle on 7 December 2021 and submitted to us, uses the term “party” in relation to the gathering on 18 December 2020. Mr Johnson’s lawyers informed us on his behalf that:
   In these messages, Mr Doyle and the Prime Minister refer to [No. 10 official] talking about “the party”, however they only do so as shorthand, because that is what the event is being called in the media. It is not a concession that the Prime Minister believed a “party” or any kind of illicit or unauthorised gathering had taken place.
83. Mr Johnson argues that he heard nothing from his flat, nor did he see anyone “detectably under the influence of alcohol”, but it is not claimed that he did. Mr Johnson asserts that he did not observe what was going on as he passed the entrance to the Press Office, because his “mind was decisively elsewhere” and “my attention is often elsewhere when I am returning to the flat”. This may have been the case, but it is in our view not a credible reason why he would not have observed the gathering. Given the evidence we have received that between 25 and 40 people attended the gathering, that drinking began at 5 pm and the event was “beyond desk drinks” and continued till “the ​early hours”, and that Mr Johnson walked past at 9.58 pm, given that the issue of Fixed Penalty Notices suggests the social (not work-related) nature of the event, for at least some time (and the evidence we have suggests that would be a significant proportion of the event), and given that we know from our own evidence that social distancing was not observed, we conclude that Mr Johnson is unlikely to have been unaware, as he returned to his flat, that a crowded gathering that was in breach of the Covid Rules and Guidance was taking place in the Press Office vestibule. We accept, however, that it is possible, though unlikely, that there was nothing untoward occurring in the vestibule at the time he ascended to the flat.

#### Gathering on 14 January 2021Gathering on 14 January 2021

84. In January 2021, the Rules in force for the prevention of the spread of Covid included restrictions on indoor gatherings of two or more people, and Guidance stated that there should be social distancing of 2 metres or 1 metre with risk mitigations in the workplace wherever possible, and that only absolutely necessary participants should usually physically attend meetings. At a Covid press conference on 30 December 2020, Mr Johnson outlined the ‘Tier 4’ restrictions which were in force in London a fortnight later when the 14 January gathering took place. He said the restrictions meant “not meeting up with friends or family indoors, unless they are in the same household or support bubble, and avoiding large gatherings of any kind.”
85. On Friday 14 January 2021, Mr Johnson attended and gave a speech at a leaving gathering for two officials involving 15 people. This was held in the Pillared Room in No. 10. The gathering was described in evidence submitted to the Committee by a No. 10 official who attended it as “not strictly a meeting about work”. Photographs submitted to us confirm that Mr Johnson was in attendance. Fixed Penalty Notices were issued to staff for this event.
   I do not believe that anything I saw in the short period of time that I was at the gathering was contrary to the Rules or Guidance.
87. We note that although Mr Johnson in his evidence frequently comments on how relatively brief his attendance at gatherings was, the issue is not the duration of his attendance but whether he was there for long enough to observe the nature of the gathering, the number of other people present, and whether any mitigations were in place if social distancing could not be observed.
88. Mr Johnson observed that he did not receive a Fixed Penalty Notice in relation to this event, and stated that “[i]nsofar as others did receive a Fixed Penalty Notice in relation to this event, I can only assume that it related to conduct after my departure, and that the event escalated into something different in nature to what I had seen”. Mr Johnson repeats this assumption more generally in his written submission to the Committee, where he states “I did not know that any of the events that I had attended later escalated beyond what was lawful after I left”.
89. An alternative explanation for his not having received a FPN is that an individual person may have had a reasonable excuse for their participation in a gathering that was not (and never was) reasonably necessary for work purposes. Mr Johnson is aware that some individuals may not have received FPNs in respect of gatherings that nonetheless breached the Covid Rules as he states in his written evidence that he is aware that other attendees at the 19 June 2020 gathering did not receive FPNs despite his having received one. The fact Mr Johnson did not receive an FPN for an individual event therefore does not exclude the possibility that he could have made an assessment that the gathering overall was not compliant with the Rules.
90. Mr Johnson also added that no one at the time had raised any concerns with him about whether the event on 14 January 2021 complied with the Rules or Guidance, and that “no one advised me before or after the event that it was against the Rules or Guidance to thank departing staff”. In his written evidence, he also states more generally that the evidence received by the Committee contains “not a single document that indicates that I received any warning or advice that any event broke or may have broken the Rules or Guidance”.
91. However, we consider that Mr Johnson’s personal knowledge of the gatherings, in particular what he saw while he was present at them, means that he would not have needed to be reliant on advice to satisfactorily assess their nature. We also note that Mr Johnson made repeated statements to the House and the public highlighting the responsibility of everyone in the UK to understand and follow the Covid measures in place; for example:
* On 13 May 2020, Mr Johnson told the House: “We are working together as a country to obey the social distancing rules, which everybody understands. The ​ British people understand that this is the moment for the whole country to come together, obey those rules, and apply common sense in their application of them”.
* On 22 September 2020, Mr Johnson said at a Covid press conference: “Never in our history has our collective destiny and our collective health depended so completely on our individual behaviour. If we follow these simple rules together, we will get through this winter together”.
* Again on 22 September 2020, Mr Johnson told the House–after announcing new workplace restrictions and promoting covid-secure business practices: “If people focus on the measures we have outlined today, and particularly on obeying the guidance on social distancing, together we will defeat covid.”
92. In oral evidence Mr Johnson “disagree[d] […] very strongly” with the suggestion that a breach of Covid Rules would have been obvious to him when he was there. Referring to one of the photographs we invited him to comment on, he said “[t]here is nothing I can see […] in that photograph that strikes me as being either against the Rules or the Guidance”. As in relation to other gatherings, Mr Johnson asserted that “I thought it was right and proper for me to motivate staff by saying how we were doing and to thank them for what they had done. It wasn’t just the staff who were leaving who needed to be appreciated; it was the staff who were there, who needed to be motivated”.
93. Commenting on the array of bottles visible on the table in the photographs, Mr Johnson said “I know that there are some bottles on the table […] It is customary to say farewell to people in this country with a toast. I did not see any sign of drunkenness or excess […] I don’t know what happened later on”.
94. We note that some participants in the gathering received Fixed Penalty Notices. As we have commented earlier (see paragraphs 37 and 66), we do not consider that an event at this time was compliant with Covid Rules if the purpose of the event was purely to maintain staff morale.

#### Other gatheringsOther gatherings

95. On 18 May 2023 the Government, without prior notice to us, supplied us with new evidence relating to 16 gatherings at No. 10 and at Chequers. Accompanying this was a statement by the Government that: “As part of their work preparing Boris Johnson’s witness statement for the Covid Inquiry (due to be filed on 29 May), the counsel team supporting Mr Johnson identified a number of diary entries as potentially problematic. These entries […] are based on an assessment by Government Legal Department as to events/activities which could reasonably be considered to constitute breaches of Covid Regulations.” We assessed that this material was potentially relevant to our inquiry and accepted it as formal evidence. The following day, 19 May, we disclosed the material to Mr Johnson and requested that he supply us with comments, which we subsequently received. We also asked the Cabinet Office to supply us with further contextual material about the ​16 events including the Prime Minister’s diary for each day, and subsequently made a formal Order that they should supply us with any agendas or minutes or correspondence that might have a bearing on whether the events were work-related. The Cabinet Office has provided us with this material.
96. From Mr Johnson’s lawyers we received on 22 May a statement that: “None of the events referred to in the documents constitute breaches of Covid Regulations and nobody has ever raised any concerns whatsoever with Mr Johnson about them. Mr Johnson does not accept that any of the events are relevant to the Privileges Committee’s investigation.”
97. Mr Johnson’s lawyers further stated that: “Each event was lawful for one or more of the following reasons: the gathering was reasonably necessary for work purposes; the gathering took place outside; the rule of six applied at the time; the linked household provisions applied; the linked childcare provisions applied; and/or emergency assistance and/or care/assistance was being provided to a vulnerable (pregnant) person”. We requested that Mr Johnson supply specific justifications for each gathering, and on 2 June he made further submissions in response to this request.
98. Mr Johnson has provided, under a statement of truth, explanations of the 16 events referred to in the recent material submitted to us by the Government. We have no evidence conflicting with his account. We do not wish to incur the further delay to our inquiry that would result from a detailed investigation of these events, and therefore we treat Mr Johnson’s explanations as prima facie true. If for any reasons it subsequently emerges that Mr Johnson’s explanations are not true, then he may have committed a further contempt.

### Arguments advanced by Mr JohnsonArguments advanced by Mr Johnson
#### Mr Johnson’s assertions as to the meaning of the GuidanceMr Johnson’s assertions as to the meaning of the Guidance

99. In his final submission to us, Mr Johnson maintains that the Guidance was in fact subject to his flexible interpretation. He states:
   The Committee’s interpretation is obviously wrong. The Guidance states in clear and express terms: “Objective: Ensuring workers maintain social distancing guidelines (2m, or 1m with risk mitigation where 2m is not viable), wherever possible, including while arriving at and departing from work, while in work and when travelling between sites”. The Committee appears to be suggesting that “wherever possible” attaches to part of the text in parenthesis but not all of it. That is, with respect, an impossible reading of that sentence. It also entirely ignores the following paragraph which states: “You must maintain social distancing in the workplace wherever possible”. The position could not be clearer.
   The Committee also referred on multiple occasions to the part of the Guidance that said “only absolutely necessary participants should physically attend meetings”. The Committee appears to present this as an absolute requirement for all meetings but, with respect, that is also incorrect. As ​pointed out to Sir Bernard, this requirement is part of a list of “steps that will usually be needed”. Clearly, a step that “usually” is needed is not one that must always be followed.
100. The issue is not whether the Guidance contemplated that there could be circumstances in which it was not possible to maintain the social distancing guidelines of 2 metres, or 1 metre with risk mitigation where two metres is not viable: the Guidance clearly did so. The Guidance equally clearly indicated that “Where the social distancing guidelines cannot be followed in full, even through redesigning a particular activity, business should consider whether that activity needs to continue for the business to operate, and, if so, take all the mitigating actions possible to reduce the risk of transmission to staff.” The words “where possible” do not provide a blanket exemption to ignore obligations in the Guidance in respect of social distancing.
101. The claim that the word “usually” in the guidance meant prescriptions could be ignored is similarly misplaced. The guidance relating to meetings as it stood in November 2020 stated:
   3.4 Meetings
   Objective: To reduce transmission due to face-to-face meetings and maintain social distancing in meetings.
   Steps that will usually be needed:
   * Using remote working tools to avoid in-person meetings.
   * Only absolutely necessary participants should physically attend meetings and should maintain social distancing (2m, or 1m with risk mitigation where 2m is not viable).
   * Avoiding transmission during meetings, for example avoiding sharing pens, documents and other objects.
   * Providing hand sanitiser in meeting rooms.
   * Holding meetings outdoors or in well-ventilated rooms whenever possible.
   * For areas where regular meetings take place, using floor signage to help people maintain social distancing.
102. A reasonable reader of the Guidance would note the objective of reducing transmission, and consider which of the steps which might usually be needed should apply (for example, if a meeting was held outdoors, the provision about hand sanitiser in meeting rooms would be unnecessary). Mr Johnson’s interpretation is not credible. It suggests that any business could have ignored the Guidance by simply deciding mitigations were not possible, and that it was going to disregard most or all of the mitigations which were usually needed. ​

#### Mr Johnson’s argument that no-one raised any concerns with himMr Johnson’s argument that no-one raised any concerns with him

103. Mr Johnson argues that a proof of his honest belief that Rules and Guidance were followed in No. 10 was that no one raised any concerns with him. He told us in oral evidence that, while he does not “remember being specifically assured by any senior civil servant about the rules or the guidance within No. 10, […] the interesting thing is that, to the contrary, nobody gave me any contrary advice”. He also said, “in all the cases that you mention nobody came to me and said, ‘We’ve got a problem with this one. You need to worry about this’”.
104. In response to this “argument from silence”, we note that:
* One senior official, Mr Johnson’s Principal Private Secretary, Martin Reynolds, did in fact question directly with Mr Johnson whether the Guidance had been followed at all times (see paragraph 147 below–though Mr Reynolds also maintained in his written evidence that he believed and still believes the events were within the Rules);
* Other No. 10 staff, including some of Mr Johnson’s most senior advisers, expressed concerns–albeit not directly to Mr Johnson–either at the time of the gatherings, or when the gatherings came to public attention, that they appeared prima facie breaches of the Rules or Guidance: Lee Cain told us in evidence that he saw the tone of the email invitation for the gathering of 20 May 2020 as “clearly social and in breach of covid guidance” (see paragraph 25 above);We have evidence of WhatsApp messages sent by Jack Doyle in January 2022 stating he was “struggling to come up with a way” the gathering of 19 June 2020 was “in the rules” (see paragraph 47 above);
* A junior official also told us in evidence that they felt it was clear that Rules and Guidance were not being followed in Downing Street, stating: “No. 10, despite setting the rules to the country, was slow to enforce any rules in the building. The press office Wine Time Fridays continued throughout, social distancing was not enforced […] This was all part of a wider culture of not adhering to any rules. No 10 was like an island oasis of normality”.
105. Mr Johnson also, of course, had personal knowledge of the gatherings (see paragraphs 23–94 above), as well as a particular responsibility in his role as Prime Minister to ensure he understood the Rules and Guidance his Government was directing the country to follow–not to rely on others to provide unsolicited advice.
   If it was obvious to me that these events were contrary to the guidance and the rules, it must have been equally obvious to dozens of others, including ​the most senior officials in the country. […] You are not only accusing me of lying; you are accusing all those civil servants, advisers and MPs of lying about what they believed at the time to be going on.
107. The Committee is certainly not accusing civil servants or advisers of lying. We note the comments in written evidence we received from a No. 10 official, that “I was following a workplace culture. Senior people led it”, and that “I look back and wouldn’t do it now. I did it because senior people did it”. We note that it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for many staff members, particularly junior ones, to express concerns about the Prime Minister’s behaviour or the behaviour of others in No. 10 as this would have been potentially career-damaging criticism of senior staff or the head of government.
108. Finally, we note that the issue by the Metropolitan Police of 126 Fixed Penalty Notices to 83 attendees at events in No. 10, while not theoretically incompatible with Mr Johnson’s argument that no-one at No. 10 thought they were doing anything wrong, might alternatively be taken to suggest that Mr Johnson was overseeing in No. 10 a culture of laxity towards observance of the Rules and Guidance. Under these circumstances there was little incentive for officials to confront the Prime Minister with advice that the Rules or Guidance were being breached. As Prime Minister, Mr Johnson will have played a role, intentionally or otherwise, in the development of this culture; indeed, he has himself accepted responsibility for what happened in Downing Street.

### Gatherings: conclusionsGatherings: conclusions

109. We have set out and analysed evidence on six gatherings. This establishes that Mr Johnson had personal knowledge that should have led him, at least after due reflection and as gathering succeeded gathering, to question whether the Covid Rules and Guidance were being complied with.
110. For several of the No. 10 gatherings, as we have detailed, Mr Johnson has argued that it did not occur to him that they were in breach of Rules or Guidance. This is despite the fact that he must have been aware of the number of people attending, of the absence of official work being done, and of the absence of social distancing without visible mitigations. In each case he argues that he genuinely believed the events were covered by a work-related exemption to the Rules. He also argues that efforts to socially distance and the putting in place of some mitigations where possible (albeit somewhere other than where the gatherings were taking place) were sufficient for compliance with the Guidance.
111. With regard to the Rules: the gathering had to be essential or reasonably necessary for work purposes. A workplace ‘thank you’, leaving drink, birthday celebration or motivational event is obviously neither essential or reasonably necessary. Mr Johnson is adamant that he believed all of the events which he attended and of which he had direct knowledge were essential. That belief, which he continues to assert, has no reasonable basis in the Rules or on the facts. A reasonable person looking at the events ​and the Rules would not have the belief that Mr Johnson has professed. That is plain from the fact that around the UK during the period of pandemic restrictions these events did not take place.
112. This point is reinforced by the exposure of the mock Downing Street press conference video which became public in December 2021. When asked about one of the gatherings we have examined, that of 18 December 2020, and more generally whether the Prime Minister would “condone having a Christmas party”, Mr Johnson’s then Press Secretary Allegra Stratton was unable to think of any credible response, and was evidently embarrassed.
113. Five of the six events we have focussed on had the core purpose of thanking staff who had been working hard, or raising morale following the departure of staff. Mr Johnson, when asked whether he would have condoned gatherings for this purpose in other organisations, declined to say that he would. As we concluded in paragraphs 37 and 65 above, in view of Mr Johnson’s repeated exhortations to the public to follow the Rules and Guidance, indicating the importance he attached to their being taken seriously, we do not believe that, if asked at the time whether unsocially distanced “leaving dos” to maintain staff morale were permitted under the Rules and Guidance, he would have advised the British public that they were.
114. In respect of the sixth event, the gathering to celebrate his birthday on 19 June 2020, while we have no reason to think that the meeting that followed this event was anything other than a necessary work meeting, Mr Johnson was unable to provide a convincing reason why this prior gathering was “reasonably necessary for work purposes”.
115. With regard to the Guidance, there was no obvious social distancing at any of the events for which the Committee has photographs, and we have direct evidence about the lack of social distancing from witnesses. We have no evidence of substantive mitigations in place in the rooms or areas where the gatherings took place (save the 20 May 2020 gathering in the garden because it was open air). The mitigations described by Mr Johnson do not relate to the activities complained of. At best they are such marginal expedients as not touching pens or passing things to each other, except of course alcohol.
116. Mr Johnson concedes that social distancing was not possible at these events but maintains the Guidance was complied with “completely”. That is not correct. Mr Johnson refers to social distancing of less than 2 metres as “imperfect” social distancing. This term is not in the Guidance. Without all possible efforts being made to redesign the event, to allow for social distancing of at least 1-metre with substantive mitigations, is non-compliance. This inability to maintain full social distancing would have brought into operation the clause in the Guidance relating to considering whether, in these circumstances, the event should take place at all. We conclude that Mr Johnson’s persistence in putting forward this unsustainable interpretation of the Guidance is both disingenuous and a retrospective contrivance to mislead the House and this Committee.
117. We think it highly unlikely on the balance of probabilities that Mr Johnson, in the light of his cumulative direct personal experience of these events, and his familiarity ​with the Rules and Guidance as their most prominent public promoter, could have genuinely believed at the time of his statements to the House that the Rules or Guidance were being complied with. We think it just as unlikely he could have continued to believe this at the time of his evidence to our Committee. We conclude that when he told the House and this Committee that the Rules and Guidance were being complied with, his own knowledge was such that he deliberately misled the House and this Committee.
* ↑ We refer to “gatherings” or “events” as these are neutral terms. We have avoided using the word “party”, except occasionally when directly quoting the words of a witness, as this is not a term used in the House’s referral motion of 21 April 2022, which refers to “events”, nor is it one susceptible of clear definition. In paragraph 82 below we refer to one case in which Mr Johnson himself used the term “party”, and we cite his lawyers’ explanation for his use of the term.
* ↑ As set out in the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, and subsequent Regulations.
* ↑ As set out in various iterations of the guidance: “Working safely during coronavirus (COVID-19): Offices and contact centres”, published on GOV.UK
* ↑ Evidence received from the Cabinet Office on 21 December 2022. See Additional evidence materials: Additional material not previously published relied upon in the Committee’s Fifth Report, Session 2022–23, pp3–7
* ↑ Regulations stated: “No person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people”. Exceptions included “where the gathering is essential for work purposes”. See: The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/350) (as amended 13 May 2020), Regulation 7. Workplace Guidance stated: “You must maintain social distancing in the workplace wherever possible”. It encouraged business to take “all the mitigating actions possible” where social distancing could not be followed in full. For meetings, this included using remote working tools to avoid in-person meetings, only absolutely necessary participants attending, and holding meetings outdoors or in well-ventilated rooms. See: GOV.UK, Working safely during coronavirus (COVID-19): Offices and contact centres, as updated 19 May 2020.
* ↑ HC Deb, 11 May 2020, Vol 676 col 29
* ↑ Ibid., col 27
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials: Material to be relied upon by The Committee of Privileges and Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP in the oral evidence session of the Committee on 22 March 2023, p35
* ↑ As noted in the Second Permanent Secretary’s report into gatherings on government premises, on 21 May 2020, a No. 10 special adviser emailed Martin Reynolds saying, “Thank you so much for organising these drinks and for providing the wine!”. See: GOV.UK, Findings of Second Permanent Secretary's Investigation Into Alleged Gatherings on Government Premises During Covid Restrictions, 25 May 2022
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p34
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p38
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p34
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p37
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p37
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, pp 34, 40 and 41
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p34; Q75
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002) paras 42–45
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002) paras 51
* ↑ Q61–62
* ↑ Q68
* ↑ Q71
* ↑ Q74
* ↑ Q76
* ↑ Q77
* ↑ Qq63–64; see also Q94
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0003), para 4
* ↑ Regulations stated: “No person may participate in a gathering which takes place in a public or private place— (a) outdoors, and consists of more than six persons, (b) indoors, and consists of two or more persons.” Exceptions included “where the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, or for the provision of voluntary or charitable services”. See: The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/350) (as amended 15 June 2020), Regulation 7. Workplace Guidance stated: “You must maintain social distancing in the workplace wherever possible”. It encouraged business to take “all the mitigating actions possible” where social distancing could not be followed in full. For meetings, this included using remote working tools to avoid in-person meetings, only absolutely necessary participants attending, and holding meetings outdoors or in well-ventilated rooms. See: GOV.UK, Working safely during coronavirus (COVID-19): Offices and contact centres, as updated 15 June 2020.
* ↑ GOV.UK, Prime Minister’s statement on coronavirus (COVID-19): 10 June 2020, 10 June 2020
* ↑ See Appendix 1 for photographs
* ↑ Additional evidence materials, p4
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p26: “Ms Lytle […] was accompanying the PM’s fiancee”
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002) para 38
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002) paras 38–39
* ↑ Q95
* ↑ Q57
* ↑ Q58
* ↑ See Appendix 1
* ↑ Qq59–60
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p79
* ↑ Regulations stated: “No person may participate in a gathering which— (a) consists of two or more people, and (b) takes place indoors (including indoors within a private dwelling).” Exceptions included “where the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, or for the provision of voluntary or charitable services”. See: The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/1200) (as amended 10 November 2020), Part 3. Workplace Guidance stated: “You must maintain social distancing in the workplace wherever possible”. It advised social distancing of 2 metres, or 1 metre with risk mitigations where 2 metres was not viable. It encouraged business to take “all the mitigating actions possible” where social distancing could not be followed in full. For meetings, this included using remote working tools to avoid in-person meetings, only absolutely necessary participants attending, and holding meetings outdoors or in well-ventilated rooms. See: GOV.UK, Working safely during coronavirus (COVID-19): Offices and contact centres, as updated 9 November 2020.
* ↑ On the way to his flat at 19.17 it is recounted that “The Prime Minister unexpectedly arrived and gathered 15–20 people, gave a speech and joined the team for alcohol”. See: Core evidence bundle materials, p9
* ↑ See Appendix 1 for photographs
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p9
* ↑ Q13
* ↑ Q9
* ↑ Q14
* ↑ Q15; see also Q34.
* ↑ Qq100–101
* ↑ Q102
* ↑ Q17
* ↑ Q9
* ↑ Q20
* ↑ Q25
* ↑ Q104
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 54
* ↑ Qq27–28
* ↑ His exact words were: “I don’t accept that people were not making an effort to distance themselves socially from each other” (Q9).
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p17 and p19
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials p17; for measurements see paragraph 62 above.
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p17
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p17
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 63
* ↑ Q43
* ↑ Q47
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 62
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 63
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 55 and cross-reference in para 60
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 60
* ↑ See paragraph 68 above.
* ↑ Additional evidence materials, p8; for the material in the Sue Gray report referred to by Mr Johnson, see GOV.UK, Findings of the Second Permanent Secretary’s Investigation into alleged gatherings on government premises during Covid restrictions, 25 May 2022, p19
* ↑ Q49
* ↑ On this date, London was classified as a ‘Tier 3’ area. Regulations stated: “No person may participate in a gathering in the Tier 3 area which— (a) consists of two or more people, and (b) takes place in a private dwelling or in any indoor space.” Exceptions included “where the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, or for the provision of voluntary or charitable services”. See: The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/1374) (as amended 2 December 2020), Schedule 3 Part 1. Workplace Guidance stated: “You must maintain social distancing in the workplace wherever possible”. It advised social distancing of 2 metres, or 1 metre with risk mitigations where 2 metres was not viable. It encouraged business to take “all the mitigating actions possible” where social distancing could not be followed in full. For meetings, this included using remote working tools to avoid in-person meetings, only absolutely necessary participants attending, and holding meetings outdoors or in well-ventilated rooms. See: GOV.UK, Working safely during coronavirus (COVID-19): Offices and contact centres, as updated 14 December 2020.
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p54
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, pp 54–56
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, pp 54–56
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 66
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 71
* ↑ Q85
* ↑ Additional evidence materials, p10
* ↑ On this date, London (together with the rest of England) was classified as a ‘Tier 4’ area. Regulations stated: “No person may participate in a gathering in the Tier 4 area which— (a) consists of two or more people, and (b) takes place in a private dwelling or in any indoor space.” Exceptions included “where the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, or for the provision of voluntary or charitable services”. See: The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/1374) (as amended 6 January 2021), Schedule 3A Part 2. Workplace Guidance stated: “Currently, you can only leave home for work purposes where it is unreasonable for you to do your job from home. If it is unreasonable for you to do your job from home, you must maintain social distancing in the workplace wherever possible”. It advised social distancing of 2 metres, or 1 metre with risk mitigations where 2 metres was not viable. It encouraged business to take “all the mitigating actions possible” where social distancing could not be followed in full. For meetings, this included using remote working tools to avoid in-person meetings, only absolutely necessary participants attending, and holding meetings outdoors or in well-ventilated rooms. See: GOV.UK, Working safely during coronavirus (COVID-19): Offices and contact centres, as updated 7 January 2021.
* ↑ GOV.UK, Prime Minister’s statement on coronavirus (COVID-19): 30 December 2020, 30 December 2020
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p47
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p47
* ↑ See Appendix 1 for photographs
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 67
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 68
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 37
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 38
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 69
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 5. We address the question of advice Mr Johnson may have received from his Principal Private Secretary Martin Reynolds relating to possible non-compliance with the Guidance in paragraphs 147 and 161 below; see also paragraphs 103 to 108.
* ↑ HC Deb, 13 May 2020, Vol 676 col 30
* ↑ GOV.UK, Prime Minister’s statement on coronavirus (COVID-19): 22 September 2020, 22 September 2020
* ↑ HC Deb, 22 September 2020, Vol 680 col 813
* ↑ Qq80–81
* ↑ Q80, Q82
* ↑ Additional evidence materials, p13
* ↑ Ibid.
* ↑ Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP (BJS0004), paras 11–12
* ↑ As set out in various iterations of the guidance: “Working safely during coronavirus (COVID-19): Offices and contact centres”, published on GOV.UK. See also: Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 28
* ↑ As set out in various iterations of the guidance: “Working safely during coronavirus (COVID-19): Offices and contact centres”, published on GOV.UK. See in particular: Core evidence bundle materials, p7
* ↑ Q107
* ↑ Q89
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p94 and p103
* ↑ Additional evidence materials, p9
* ↑ Qq3–4; see also Rt Hon Boris Johnson (BJS0002), para 6
* ↑ Core evidence bundle materials, p54
* ↑ HC Deb, 25 May 2022, Vol 715 col 295: “I also want to say, above all, that I take full responsibility for everything that took place on my watch. Sue Gray’s report has emphasised that it is up to the political leadership in No. 10 to take ultimate responsibility, and, of course, I do.”