Sadiq Khan urges Met Police to explain why Boris Johnson didn’t get second partygate fine

The Mayor of London is invoking legal powers to demand that the Metropolitan Police explains why Boris Johnson was not fined for attending an alcohol-fuelled leaving party in Downing Street.

Sadiq Khan has written to Acting Commissioner Sir Stephen House, using powers granted to all police and crime commissioners, to request urgent answers about Scotland Yard’s handling of the partygate investigation.

Mr Khan said the current lack of clarity risked eroding public trust and confidence in the force and transparency was vital to reassure people that the investigation had been handled properly.

While a mayor has no power to intervene in operational policing matters, he has made the request under legislation setting out the relationship between police and crime commissioners and chief constables.

Scotland Yard has so far refused to elaborate on why it decided to issue some people with fines for attending illegal events but let others off.

The Met has come under intense pressure to explain its findings after photographs emerged showing Mr Johnson drinking at a leaving party for Lee Cain, his former director of communications, in Downing Street on Nov 13, 2020.

At least one other person at the event received a fixed penalty notice, but it is understood Mr Johnson was not even investigated over his attendance.

One of the 15 attendees said: “I can’t work out the reason why he’s not been fined and other people have. The Met’s a shambles. They’ve been told a lot of stuff and they’ve just ignored it. It’s so obviously a breach. Whatever way you look at it, it's a breach. None of us can figure it out.”

Downing Street has suggested the reason Mr Johnson was not fined was because he had only briefly attended on his way from his office to the private flat he shares with his wife above Number 11.

But one source who was there said the Prime Minister had made a speech and stayed for around 20 minutes.

A spokesman for Mr Khan said: “Sadiq has written to the acting commissioner of the Met to seek a detailed explanation of the factors which were taken into account by investigating officers when decisions were made about whether to take action in individual cases in the Downing Street partygate investigation.

“He has asked them to take steps to also reassure Londoners by making this explanation to them directly, because he is concerned that the trust and confidence of Londoners in the police is being further eroded by this lack of clarity.

“The mayor has been clear he cannot and would not intervene in operational decisions, however with the investigation now complete, he has made this request in accordance with the Policing Protocol Order 2011 paragraph 23(g).”

Under Section 36 of the Police Reform Act, the chief constable is compelled to give the mayor or police and crime commissioner the information they require. Forces can also be ordered to make that information public.

On Tuesday night, a senior police source said it would be “unthinkable” for a chief constable to refuse a request from a police and crime commissioner to explain why they had reached a decision in a high-profile investigation.

The source said: “Chief constables are accountable to the public via the elected police and crime commissioner or mayor. On a matter like this, where public trust and confidence might be damaged, a police chief will have to comply. They are not a law to themselves.”

Another source added: “Without a clear explanation as to why the Met came to the decisions they did, the public might be left thinking they let the Prime Minister off because they were worried giving him another fine would result in him being brought down.”

Sir Stephen, who is in temporary charge of the Met following the departure of Dame Cressida Dick last month, is also due to appear before the London Assembly police and crime committee on Thursday, when he will be grilled over Operation Hillman, the partygate investigation.

Lord Stevens, a former Met commissioner, said it was important the police were “as open as possible” when explaining decision-making, but suggested the force’s reticence could be based on legal advice.