Scotland Yard threatened tonight to bring anyone breaking the Covid rules of Downing Street to Court if they did not contest their fines
Head of the ‘celebrity squad’, Commander Catherine Roper, announced officers had received the full folder of material gathered during the Cabinet Office probe – and said officers would be writing to those who attended events asking them to explain themselves.
She warned that anyone who doesn’t have a “reasonable excuse” for breaking the rules could face ‘enforcement actions.”
Commander Roper stated that if enforcement action is taken, a report will then be submitted to the ACRO Criminal Records Office. This office will issue the fixed penalty notice.
Scotland Yard threatened to sue anyone who violated the Covid rules at Downing Street if they didn’t pay their fines. Pictured: Met Police Commissioner Cressida Dick
“Recipients may pay the penalty fixed and the case will be closed.”
She added that if a recipient disputes the fixed penalty notice, the case will be returned to the Met where officers will decide whether or not to proceed with the case in a magistrates court.
Boris Johnson might be spared from being quizzed under caution by writing letters to partygoers. The force responded in a remarkable late statement to criticisms of its involvement in publishing the Sue Gray report.
The Met had suggested earlier that the report be deleted to make “minimal” reference to No10 events in order to avoid any prejudice to the investigation. But the reference to ‘prejudice’ – implying it could go before a jury – was scorned by lawyers, and later dropped.
Commander Roper stated that he would complete his investigations quickly, fairly, and proportionately.
“We haven’t delayed this report, and it is up to the Cabinet Office inquiry group when the release date will be determined.”
Scotland Yard swiftly dismissed the calls for an investigation after it was reported that Boris Johnson and his staff held boozy parties on Downing Street. Millions were subject to strict lockdown regulations.
This week’s meeting was supposed to end the months-long scandal which has plagued the PM. This is the Mail’s expose of the ineptness and inefficiency of the investigation.
The bombshell that was Dame Cressida
On Tuesday, Commissioner Cressida Dick announced that she was launching a large-scale criminal investigation and effectively lobbied for a handgrenade to the London Assembly. The Met’s previous statements were completely reversed.
Scotland Yard dismissed all calls for an investigation into the news that Boris Johnson’s staff had held parties in Downing Street, while millions were locked down.
According to the force, detectives should wait for Miss Gray’s inquiry to conclude before acting. Only if criminal evidence is found would they act.
A late, extraordinary statement by the force retorted against criticism of its intervention in publication of Sue Gray’s (pictured) report
Her explanation
Britain’s highest ranking police officer said that her officers had done an initial assessment of the dossier of evidence Miss Gray gave to them.
Dame Cressida stated that the threshold needed to open a criminal case had been satisfied. She declared: “The guidelines suggest we should potentially investigation further.”
What chaos!
Scotland Yard’s last-minute intervention threw Miss Gray’s inquiry in disarray. After Scotland Yard informed Miss Gray on Tuesday, it appeared that the report would be still published.
Yesterday, however, the force revealed to wide dismay that it had directed the Cabinet Office team not to publish any criminal behaviour or events. It also cast doubt on the timeline and extent of the report.
Fiasco over ‘prejudice’
Scotland Yard at first argued that redactions – with only ‘minimal reference’ to No10 events – were necessary to ‘avoid any prejudice to our investigation’.
However, the reference to “prejudice”, implying that the case could be before a jury was shocking for lawyers, who noted this is an indictable offence and can only be penalized by a fixed fine notice.
The Yard dropped any reference to prejudice later, as the Yard wanted to forewarn suspects. Nazir Afzal was a former chief Crown Prosecutor for the North West. He said that this statement is utter nonsense. Sue Gray can’t possibly give a biased report that is purely factsual.
Legal quagmire
In a criminal investigation, any statements made to the Cabinet Office inquiry and interviews with those involved in organizing events are not admissible as conclusive proof.
Dal Babu, former Met chief superintendent, pointed out that the civil inquiry was ‘no more’ than a report on human resources and does not have legal standing.
Dai Davies, an ex-chief superintendent suggested that staff interviewed might retract their statements.
Then he added, “Now it’s an legal quagmire.” Anybody who spoke to her inquiry may retract their evidence. They could claim that they didn’t know the evidence could be used against you in a criminal investigation.
Dilemma facing Gray
Sue Gray might publish a reduced version of her inquiry to comply with Met demands but without the key conclusions she promised from the beginning.
If she is unable to provide all details, it could lead her to be accused of whitewashing.
Alternativly, Whitehall’s inquisitor might wait until the Met has returned its verdict to publish anything.
But this could see the wait turn from days to months – with potentially disastrous consequences for trust in both the Prime Minster and policing.
Now what?
A seismic Cabinet Office report has also the potential to bring down the Prime Minister. Some Tory MPs have waited until its release before calling for a motion of confidence.
Boris Johnson could find his government paralysed by the delay for many months.
Many people in the building are worried about their futures and will not be able to implement the changes that he desires to his top staff.
This fiasco couldn’t have come at a better time. It threatens to further damage Britain’s international standing as Russia moves closer to invading Ukraine.