The case revolved around a claim famously emblazoned on Boris Johnson’s 'Leave' campaign bus that Britain would be 350 million pounds a week better off outside the EU.DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS/AFP/Getty Images
Judges at London’s High Court on Friday threw out an attempt to prosecute Boris Johnson, the front-runner to succeed Theresa May as Britain’s prime minister, for allegedly lying about the financial benefits of Brexit during the 2016 EU referendum campaign.
Last week, a magistrate agreed to issue summonses for Johnson to face charges of misconduct in public office over a claim emblazoned on his bright red “Leave” campaign bus that Britain would be £350-million ( $592-million) a week better off outside the European Union.
Opponents had argued that the slogan was deliberately misleading and it became symbolic of the divisions caused by the referendum, which saw Britons vote 52-48 per cent to leave the EU.
Marcus Ball, 29, who described himself as a social enterprise founder, brought the private prosecution against Mr. Johnson in February which led to last week’s decision.
But at a judicial review hearing on Friday at the High Court, Mr. Johnson’s lawyer, Adrian Darbishire, said the magistrate had either erred in law or provided the wrong legal test in allowing the case to go ahead.
Mr. Darbishire said the only rational conclusion was that the case was politically motivated and therefore without merit.
The High Court judges agreed the summonses should be quashed, saying they would give their reasons at a later date.
The flamboyant Mr. Johnson, who did not attend Friday’s hearing, is the favourite among Conservative lawmakers hoping to replace Ms. May as party leader and therefore prime minister.
The case could potentially have damaged his bid to replace Ms. May, who stepped down as Conservative leader on Friday although she will remain prime minister until a successor is selected.
Friday’s challenge, filed in the former foreign minister’s full name – Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson – examined whether a politician could be accused of criminal misconduct over statements made during political campaigning.
“Standing on the hustings is not the exercise of state power, and doing something naughty on the hustings is not an abuse of state power,” said Mr. Darbishire.
He said it was not for the police or juries to stray into the sphere of political debate and that it was for the electorate to decide on the truth of claims.
Mr. Ball’s overt opposition to Brexit and desire to have it stopped also showed the case had no legal merit, Mr. Darbishire added. “This is realistically, plainly speaking, a political prosecution,” he said.
After the verdict, Mr. Ball, who has raised more than £350,000 through crowdfunding to pursue the prosecution, said he would mull whether to appeal, saying his case was not about stopping Brexit.
“I will not give up until I believe that all possible options are exhausted,” he said.
“If you are an elected representative and you are talking about people’s money … it’s not correct for a member of Parliament to lie to everybody about that.”
As for the £350-million claim itself, Mr. Johnson’s lawyers said he denied acting dishonestly in any way and the figure remained contentious.
“It is still being adhered to today,” Mr. Darbishire said.