CUMMINGS AND THE PHILOSOPHER'S STORY

A Criminal Judge

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury.  Do you find this bounder Cummings guilty or not guilty" 

With PM Johnson still adamant [as at 7.30pm Wednesday 27 May] that Cummings should stay in post, it is worth looking at whether that is justified.

David Allen Green is a former Treasury Solicitor with direct experience of working in government as a lawyer.  He is currently a columnist on law and policy for the Financial Times.  

In this capacity he has written a video "guided tour" of Dominic Cummings' statement  that he  presented from the garden of 10 Downing Street on Sunday 25 May.  The video is free to access and worth watching if you have 25-30 minutes to spare.

As David explains, this statement has been written by a lawyer in the form of a witness statement.  The simple reason is that the matters being discussed are potentially breaking regulations and laws with criminal consequences.  Cummings must anticipate a police enquiry, and therefore he (and the government) have the need to avoid prosecution. Or indeed avoid a successful prosecution to the test of 'beyond reasinable doubt'.

So let's imagine he's come to court and we're members of the jury.  Personally I have been the prosecution witness in a fraud trial, and have been subject to character assassination by Defence Counsel.  Thankfully I watched Crown Court on TV as a youth and knew what to expect. The two men who I testified against were sent down.  But I am not a lawyer.

So I am approaching this blog post primarily as a member of the public who has built up a reasonable understanding of both commercial and criminal law over the years.

We'll need to put aside that Cummings is known as a liar.  And put aside that this statement isn't signed.  We can't be sure that this is the truth, and certainly not the whole truth.  But let's do as David has done and firstly approach this as if it were truthful.

I will approach this in three sections, plus a conclusion.


PM JOHNSON'S STATEMENTS EITHER SIDE

Johnson referred to only one thing in the press conference the previous evening.  That was that Cummings drove some 260 miles from London to a family home near Durham, where he succumbed to COVID-19.  This was also Johnson's stance in the press conference after Cummings's statement.  It is this journey to Durham that is most carefully addressed in Cummings's statement.

Three reasons are given to avoid the charge that he broke lockdown regulations by leaving his house with his family.  This is whether or not any of them were already showing symptoms, which would make it more serious to have left the house..

Indeed I have some sympathy with the notion that someone in an important role in fighting COVID-19 should get away to a 'safe house' to recover in peace as quickly and thoroughly as possible.  Just like I supported Johnson going to Chequers after leaving hospital.   Not because Cummings is "elite" but because he is important.  Though not indispensable.

But I just don't buy the rest of the story and justifications.  Help would have been available for food and childcare in London.

As an employee of the government, Cummings should have discussed this trip with his boss. Johnson or Raab whoever was available.  They in turn could have arranged transport.  Not allowed him to drive potentially ill and infectious that distance.  Did he really not stop?  Was the car full of fuel beforehand?    Really?  And was the request actually refused, but he did it anyway?   There's more questions than answers.


OTHER POINTS IN THE STATEMENT

But frankly this journey to Durham was not the most significant part of this statement.  It was other aspects that Johnson didn't cover:

• That Cummings visited Downing Street just before that journey after his wife had started to show symptoms of illness. That was not only against regulations, but potentially dangerous to his colleagues if Cummings was already infectious.  As it sounds he was, given he becasme ill shortly after arrivel in Durham and people can be infectious for some five days before.
• The journey to Barnard Castle.  Whilst this was apparently after his recovery, though arguably not long enough after symptoms has subsided.  Unlike the drive to Durham, there is no adequate reason to have left the house to drive anywhere else.
• That he drove without being sure of his eye sight being adequate.  That would have been easy to check to a legal level.  But he didn't.  Anyone who has passed their driving test knows there is a rule for reading number plates and can quickly look up the latest regulation.  To drive in doibt potentially put his family and other road users in danger.  Around an hour each way is not trivial.

Two of these points, in addition to the London-Durham trip, were kindly confirmed by Jeremy Hunt  in a tweet on Monday 26 May.  Jeremy had been Health Minister and runner up to Johnson to be Conservative leader and potential PM.

Cummings may be able to find a lawyer to get him off the hook.  But it would be on a technicality.  These points clearly show Cummings is a danger to himself, his family, his colleagues, and to the general public.  So Hunt's conclusion not to call for Cummings's resignation is astonishing:

OTHER FACTORS

In addition to the statement itself, a prosecuting counsel could also raise points from outside the statement that David hasn't covered:

• Inconsistencies with the article his wife Mary Wakefield wrote in the Spectator.  These inconsistencies are set out here
• Cummings appears to have broken the code for Special Advisors to hold that press conference, certainly on government premises .  He has no respect for law nor conventions.
• That Cummings amended a blog article shortly after getting back to work. Seemingly insignificant, but then lied about it. Why so important?
• If he's confessing serious aspects of his trip to Barnard Castle, what is he trying to cover up that is more serious?

IN CONCLUSION

It is clear that Cummings is a danger to himself, his family, his colleagues and the general public.  He may also be proved to have committed criminal offences, and otherwise disregarded law, regulations and conventions.  As well as undermining the government's messages about this coronavirus now and in future..


Such a person is not .fit and proper to hold any position in government, let alone one as influential as his.

"Guilty m'lud."  Beyond reasinable doubt.

How anyone can support him is astonishing.  That's PM Johnson, Hunt and senior cabinet members including Raab, Gove, Sushi and Hancock.  All of them have shown a distinct lack of judgement, such that none of them are fit for their jobs in government.

Indeed another minister has already resigned over the matter, and over 40 Conservative MPs have publicly declared their wish to see Cummings resign.  That's in theory enough to reverse Johnson's majority in the event of a vote of no confidence. Yet Johnson perseveres in backing Cummings, probably to save his own skin for as long as possible.

As I have already set out here, that means:

• Cummings should resign
• PM Johnson should resign before he's pushed
• An Interim PM should be quickly appointed.  Selected from people who have not supported Cummings.
• Raab can cover for Johnson just like when Johnson was in hospital
• The Interim PM can then appoint their own team to replace Cummings supporters.

If this doesn't happen we have to wonder how Cummings has such a tight grip over these ministers and other members of their party.  What exactly is he hiding?

So it is up to the Conservative party to resolve this crisis, and quickly.  They need to appoint an Interim leader and PM.  Where there's a will there's a way.  They've just got to find it.