Brexiteers rally behind Johnson as Lord Sugar says politician should be ‘in prison’
- Credit: PA Archive/PA Images
Brexiteer friends of Boris Johnson have criticised a court case which could see Boris Johnson prosecuted for misleading claims made about the EU, made during the referendum campaign.
A district judge has ruled that Boris Johnson had a case to make in court, and issued a summons ruling for the Tory leadership hopeful to attend to respond to the claims.
Lawyers acting on behalf of campaigner Marcus Ball said the politician had deliberately misled the public during the Brexit referendum campaign in 2016 and then repeated the statement during the 2017 general election.
A source close to Johnson attempted to frame the court case as "nothing less than a politically motivated attempt to reverse Brexit and crush the will of the people".
"The claimant has openly admitted that his plan is to overturn the referendum via a legal challenge and he clearly intends to try and undermine the one man who can truly deliver Brexit.
You may also want to watch:
"The decision to issue a summons is extraordinary, and flies in the face of hundreds of years of British democratic tradition."
The decision to summons the former foreign secretary was criticised by Tory Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg, who said it was a "troubling" abuse of process.
- 1 The Remainers' case for keeping the United Kingdom together
- 2 The deep roots of Labour's red wall decline
- 3 How Brexit has turned sour for the dairy industry
- 4 Dominic Cummings warns Boris Johnson against next stage of unlocking
- 5 Labour needs more positivity, more patriotism, more policy... and less wokery
- 6 What's next for Laurence Fox after London mayor fiasco?
- 7 The slow death of Channel Islands Norman
- 8 Why the English could understand the Vikings
- 9 Former Tory speaker admits voting Labour after labeling Boris Johnson a 'liar'
- 10 Lawyers expose 'false claims' made by ministers over visa-free music tours of EU after Brexit
He told the Press Association: "It is trying to use the courts to achieve a political end which, I think, is neither right or proper. This is involving the courts in something that is not their area.
"We need courts and politicians to respect each other, and it is an abuse of process, and a troubling one. It has been brought by people who are resentful of the referendum result."
And Conservative former cabinet minister and barrister David Mellor said the ruling was a "deplorable absurdity", and that courts should not adjudicate on what politicians do during election campaigns.
"I imagine there will be no shortage of senior judges who will feel acutely embarrassed about this."
"Politicians at election times exaggerate, and say things that may or may not be true, and it's the electorate, not the courts, who should decide whether they are reliable or not.
"This is a bad day for British justice. But probably, contrary to the wishes of those who have crowdfunded this nonsense, a big boost to Boris. Is that what they really intended? Nutty, nutty, nutty."
Health secretary Matt Hancock, who is also vying for the top job, said: "However people voted in the referendum, we shouldn't have courts judging on political debates.
"Let's have robust debate to test arguments - and keep courts out of politics."
Alan Sugar, a crossbench peer and leading businessman, however reiterated his calls for the leading Brexiteers behind the Leave campaign to be prosecuted.
He tweeted: "Britain is going to leave the European Union, which in my opinion will place the country in a disastrous state.
"Boris Johnson and Michael Gove are liars and should be criminally prosecuted.
Regrettably, however, the laws which apply to businessmen do not apply to these slippery politicians."
Become a Supporter
The New European is proud of its journalism and we hope you are proud of it too. We believe our voice is important - both in representing the pro-EU perspective and also to help rebalance the right wing extremes of much of the UK national press. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism.