Lawyers have described the findings of Sue Gray’s interim inquiry into allegations of lockdown-breaking parties in Downing Street as “damning” and “brutal”.
A report produced by the senior civil servant catalogued a series of “failures of leadership and judgment” within No 10 and the Cabinet Office while England was under coronavirus restrictions in 2020 and 2021.
But she was unable to provide meaningful findings because the police were now investigating at least 12 gatherings linked to government properties in Downing Street and Whitehall.
Whilst the report has been stripped of real legal meaning in terms of showing who breached the regulations, it gives the outline of what was happening that any prosecutor would be happy to fill in – a picture of parties and meeting up, with no regard to the rules in place
Human rights barrister Adam Wagner, who has spent the pandemic interpreting complex coronavirus laws and explaining them to the public on social media, said the findings so far are “damning” and “offer no mitigation”.
He said: “The most important new information in the report is that the police are investigating all of the gatherings she was investigating except four.
“The key (perhaps only) defence of the Government will have been that these were unique circumstances, people working incredibly hard, practically living together etc. Sue Gray has dismissed that”, adding that Ms Gray’s lawyer “will have helped her avoid using criminal liability language”.
The anonymous lawyer and author known as The Secret Barrister said the findings were “brutal”, adding: “Sue Gray’s report is redolent of a summing up from a judge who firmly believes the jury should convict.”
Describing the language as “carefully chosen”, they said: “It is not staff going rogue. It was permitted by those in charge. Who, it follows, must have known.”
Nazir Afzal, a former chief Crown prosecutor for the North West, said Ms Gray’s report places “responsibility for serious failures” on the leadership of Number 10 and the Cabinet office.
He said on Twitter: “Report says some staff wanted to raise concerns but couldn’t. It places responsibility for serious failures on No10 and Cabinet office leadership. It references events which puts Boris Johnson himself under criminal investigation.”
He also said it is “unnecessary” for the report to be published in a limited form while the police investigation continues, adding: “Police don’t need these redactions for fixed penalty offences.”
Raj Chada, the head of the criminal defence department at Hodge Jones and Allen, told the PA news agency: “Whilst the report has been stripped of real legal meaning in terms of showing who breached the regulations, it gives the outline of what was happening that any prosecutor would be happy to fill in – a picture of parties and meeting up, with no regard to the rules in place.”
But Stuart Matthews, criminal lawyer and partner at Reeds Solicitors, said that because of the limited nature of the report so far it “tells us nothing more than we already knew”.
He said: “Sue Gray prefaces her findings with a disclaimer that she will not be drawn into commenting on whether crimes have been committed, continuing with the devastating understatement that the behaviour in question is ‘difficult to justify’ and that it represents a ‘serious failure’ to observe even the standards of the ordinary citizen, never mind the Government.
“Thoughtlessness, excessive drinking, a lack of whistleblowing protection and failures of leadership abound. However, as a consequence of the unfathomable police request for detail redaction, Gray concludes that she is unable to produce a ‘meaningful report’ in which the public can assess the detail and come to their own conclusions about the criminality of the conduct. Thus, the report tells us nothing more than we already knew.”
Kirsty Brimelow, the vice chairman of the Criminal Bar Association (CBA), told PA: “Points can be taken by government as to how it functions and reforms it may need to make.
“However, as a fact finding as a basis for potential criminal law enforcement, the report is empty.
“That information has been withheld.
“Leaving aside its criticism of governance and culture, the report is an empty vessel in relation to potential criminal offences.
“The police investigation is awaited.”
