Top judges have thrown out a legal challenge demanding a probe into why Boris Johnson didn't face questions over two lockdown parties.
Campaigners had called for a judicial review into the Met Police decision not to send the shamed former PM a questionnaire over Partygate gatherings in November and December 2020 - even though others present were fined.
Ex Met Deputy Assistant Commissioner Lord Paddick said many who were fined over lockdown breaches will find it hard to understand why Mr Johnson was spared questioning.
But the High Court ruled that a legal challenge by Lord Paddick and the Good Law Project would not go ahead.
After the decision was announced, Jo Maugham, director of the Good Law Project, fumed: "We think this decision ignores the quite proper questions that people have about what they understandably perceive to be differences of treatment between the powerful and the rest of us.
"It can’t be one rule for those in power and another rule for us. We are considering whether to appeal."
Mr Johnson was issued a solitary £50 Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN), after investigators ruled he had unlawfully attended a birthday party in his honour at Downing Street during the first lockdown.
But it later emerged that the disgraced former Tory leader - who was toppled by a huge rebellion by MPs in July - wasn't sent a questionnaire over gatherings in November and December.
A report by senior civil servant Sue Gray, released in July last year, said Mr Johnson gave a leaving toast for departing communications chief Lee Cain on November 13 2020, days after ordering England's second national lockdown.
Images published in her report showed Mr Johnson apparently raising a glass while surrounded by colleagues and bottles of wine.
He also gave a speech at an alcohol-fuelled leaving do for two No 10 officials on December 17 2020, with around 20 people in attendance, Ms Gray said.
Mr Justice Swift refused to grant a full hearing of the case, saying the legal argument had "no prospect of success".
He added: "It is not for the court to second-guess the steps the police should take for the purposes of investigation."
The judge said Ms Gray was not considering whether FPNs should be issued in relation to the events, unlike the police who had to ensure they had enough evidence to prosecute the penalties if they were not paid.
The force issued 126 FPNs to 83 people at events in Downing Street and Whitehall, including to other attendees at both the November 13 2020 and December 17 2020 gatherings.
Before this morning's hearing, Mr Maugham said: “We can't understand - and the Met won't disclose - how Boris Johnson dodged fines for going to parties that junior civil servants were fined for attending. But what it looks like is special treatment for the powerful.
“I don't care about Johnson. And nor do I care about £100 fines. What I do care about is the rule of law. It must apply without fear or favour - or everything will fall into the sea."
The campaign group said it wanted an explanation how the Met concluded that Mr Johnson's actions were legal, even though others were clobbered with fines.
The Good Law Project previously challenged the force over its decision not to investigate parties at Downing Street in January 2021.
The Met later U-turned and opened an investigation.
Lord Paddick said before the hearing: “My sole motivation is to ensure everyone is treated fairly and equally under the law as a result of the police carrying out their duty without fear or favour.
"Many fined for breaching lockdown rules will find this difficult to believe without further explanation from the Metropolitan Police.”
