Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson.....

Avatar Image
mushroom25 | 11:59 Fri 05th Jul 2019 | News
20 Answers
last month, allegations of misconduct against Boris Johnson were thrown out by the High Court, but the learned honorable justices reserved their judgment. This was published on Wednesday:-

a weighty read, but nonetheless interesting. Seems though the claimant, Marcus Ball, seeks to continue with a private prosecution, despite the judgment that there was no legal justification:-

what are the chances of Marcus Ball being successful?


1 to 20 of 20rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Following the outcome of the High Court decision, little chance I would think.
About as much chance as I have of becoming the next occupant of No. 10 or the papal apartments in the Vatican. I think there is something sinister about all this. He is not using his own money but donations. Who are the people backing him and what is their agenda?
//despite the judgment that there was no legal justification//

Not exactly a solid platform to build on is it?
Question Author
//what is their agenda? //

see the judgment - page 9 para.42.
If justice is served - none.
seeks to continue with a private prosecution, despite the judgment that there was no legal justification

wants to appeal against a judgment, in other words. There's nothing at all unusual about this.
jno //wants to appeal against a judgment,//
That is not what he is doing, he is taking out a private prosecution.
The agenda is pretty clear, is yet more remoaner muck spreading in yet another pathetic attempt to derail democracy.
dannyk, wasn't it a private prosecution all along?
jno, the case before the High Court was brought by Boris Johnson.
dannyk, I may be reading this wrong, but as far as I know Ball sought to bring a private case against Johnson; the district judge said he could; Johnson has now persuaded the High Court that he can't. Ball wants to appeal agaisnt this latest decision.
Ah!, sorry jno( having a senior moment)
no problem, dannyk. While I don't think prosecutions against a putative incoming prime minister will ever succeed, the process of appealing against a judgment is entirely normal.
Just to clarify:

Mr Ball instigated a private prosecution against Mr Johnson, alleging “Misconduct in Public Office". In order for that to progress to the Crown Court as it must (as it is an indictable only offence) it must first be presented to the Magistrates’ Court. That court has a duty to examine whether there is sufficient evidence to see the matter progress to trial. If that court makes a finding that there is sufficient evidence a summons against the defendant is issued and the case goes forward to the Crown Court. If it finds there is not, the matter ends there (bar any appeals).

Magistrates’ courts are variously presided over by three “lay” magistrates or by a legally qualified “District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts)” sitting alone. Very often in cases that involve complex areas of law a DJ is appointed and that was so in this case. She ruled that there was sufficient evidence and that a summons should be issued.

Mr Johnson appealed that decision and the judgement provided is the result of that appeal. When an appeal is either against sentence, or against conviction if the decision rests on “matters of fact” or a simple matter of law appeals against decisions in Magistrates’ Courts are usually heard in the Crown Court (before a judge and two “lay” magistrates). However where a more complicated matter of law is concerned appeals usually go before the High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) as in this case. The appeal was indeed brought by Mr Johnson on two grounds: 1. That he was not acting in public office when the alleged offence took place and 2. That the prosecution was “vexatious” (that is, brought with the intention to annoy or harass rather than to cure a mischief).

The High Court ruling overturned the DJ’s decision on the basis that the ingredients of the offence (particularly that Mr Johnson was acting in public offence at the commission of the offence) were not made out. The High Court was not required, therefore to rule on whether the prosecution was vexatious but nonetheless commented that they would have done so as they found the DJ’s decision that it was not was flawed.

Mr Ball (adequately aided by his legal team, natch) seems incredibly keen to continue spend hefty sums of other people’s money. My view is that he has virtually zero chance of his prosecution getting to court. Material from his website (which he deleted but some of which the High Court managed to recover) clearly shows his motives for pursuing his action against Mr Johnson. I expect he has been advised (or at least he ought to have been in the light of the money he has spent on his legal team) but the Attorney-General has the power to take over and discontinue any private prosecution:

But I doubt his legal team cares whether he heeds them or not. They will continue with his folly until other people’s money is exhausted.
zero, the guy's a complete wally. There's is no case to answer. Not sure what's worse, him or the plonkers that crowd funded the moron.
Tora, lie down and have a look at my answer at 12:52.
I'm already lying down ZM!
Very prudent.
many thanks for posting the judgement

1 to 20 of 20rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson.....

Answer Question >>