Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson v Westminster Magistrates' Court and others

This previous post (30 May 2019) looked at the decision by  District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) Margot Coleman to issue a summons to Boris Johnson alleging three offences of misconduct in public office.  The alleged offences related to the 2016 EU referendum campaign during which it was said that Boris Johnson repeatedly lied and misled the British public as to the cost of EU membership, expressly stating, endorsing or inferring that the cost of EU membership was £350 million per week.

The summons was later quashed by the High Court (Rafferty LJ and Supperstone J) for reasons set out in a judgment dated 3 July 2019 and published on the Judiciary website.

It is no surprise that 
that the High Court commented (para 29) that  - " ... It was not sufficient to say that he made the statements when in office as a MP and/or Mayor of London, and that “the public offices held by Mr Johnson provide status but with that status comes influence and authority” ...   That does no more than conclude that he occupied an office which carried influence.  This ingredient requires a finding that as he discharged the duties of the office he made the claims impugned ..."

The District Judge's decision is at Marcus Ball v Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

The judgment does not decide whether Mr Johson lied or not.  The decision merely relates to whether the alleged conduct was capable of falling within the offence of misconduct in public office.