WEBVTT 00:00:00.250 --> 00:00:00.750 align:middle line:90% Hello. 00:00:00.750 --> 00:00:05.880 align:middle line:84% My name is David Allen Green and I am a legal commentator 00:00:05.880 --> 00:00:07.820 align:middle line:90% for the Financial Times. 00:00:07.820 --> 00:00:12.090 align:middle line:84% I have been asked to do a guided tour, of a sort, 00:00:12.090 --> 00:00:15.900 align:middle line:84% through the statement read out by Dominic Cummings 00:00:15.900 --> 00:00:18.530 align:middle line:90% at Downing Street, 25th of May. 00:00:18.530 --> 00:00:23.040 align:middle line:84% The document is his account of his journey 00:00:23.040 --> 00:00:26.730 align:middle line:90% to Durham and relevant matters. 00:00:26.730 --> 00:00:31.200 align:middle line:84% The reason why I think this document repays close attention 00:00:31.200 --> 00:00:33.510 align:middle line:84% is that a great deal of attention 00:00:33.510 --> 00:00:35.790 align:middle line:90% was given to how it was written. 00:00:35.790 --> 00:00:40.680 align:middle line:84% For me, the document looks like a witness statement. 00:00:40.680 --> 00:00:45.250 align:middle line:84% It has the style and the content of a witness statement. 00:00:45.250 --> 00:00:47.110 align:middle line:84% And as we will go through the document 00:00:47.110 --> 00:00:50.070 align:middle line:84% you will see that it has been written carefully, again, 00:00:50.070 --> 00:00:51.450 align:middle line:90% like a witness statement. 00:00:51.450 --> 00:00:54.300 align:middle line:84% Witness statements are often drafted by lawyers. 00:00:54.300 --> 00:00:56.670 align:middle line:84% Although they are in the name of the witness, 00:00:56.670 --> 00:00:59.220 align:middle line:84% the lawyer will make sure that all the relevant evidence 00:00:59.220 --> 00:01:02.640 align:middle line:84% is set out in a clear and accessible way 00:01:02.640 --> 00:01:04.140 align:middle line:84% so that the court can go straight 00:01:04.140 --> 00:01:05.850 align:middle line:90% to the relevant evidence. 00:01:05.850 --> 00:01:07.890 align:middle line:84% They are somewhat artificial documents, 00:01:07.890 --> 00:01:10.770 align:middle line:84% but they do actually have to contain 00:01:10.770 --> 00:01:13.630 align:middle line:90% what the witness wants to say. 00:01:13.630 --> 00:01:16.440 align:middle line:84% So in a way a witness statement is 00:01:16.440 --> 00:01:18.480 align:middle line:90% a ventriloquist's instrument. 00:01:18.480 --> 00:01:22.920 align:middle line:84% It allows words to be placed in a formal and structured way 00:01:22.920 --> 00:01:26.580 align:middle line:84% so that you can go to the relevant parts of the evidence. 00:01:26.580 --> 00:01:29.760 align:middle line:84% In my opinion, the statement read out by Dominic Cummings 00:01:29.760 --> 00:01:33.120 align:middle line:84% yesterday was drafted by lawyers on his behalf. 00:01:33.120 --> 00:01:35.850 align:middle line:84% And setting out the information he had provided to them, 00:01:35.850 --> 00:01:40.860 align:middle line:84% the document is structured so that it explains, 00:01:40.860 --> 00:01:44.070 align:middle line:84% or if you are cynical, explains away all 00:01:44.070 --> 00:01:47.520 align:middle line:84% the evidence which had actually emerged about his movements 00:01:47.520 --> 00:01:49.500 align:middle line:90% in and around Durham. 00:01:49.500 --> 00:01:52.860 align:middle line:84% The document also is careful to set out 00:01:52.860 --> 00:01:56.850 align:middle line:84% in a way which is helpful to any future court 00:01:56.850 --> 00:02:00.540 align:middle line:84% or other organ of the state what his justifications were 00:02:00.540 --> 00:02:02.650 align:middle line:90% at each stage for what he did. 00:02:02.650 --> 00:02:05.370 align:middle line:84% And although this review of this particular document 00:02:05.370 --> 00:02:07.890 align:middle line:84% is interesting in and of itself it 00:02:07.890 --> 00:02:11.280 align:middle line:84% will also be helpful for people who look at other witness 00:02:11.280 --> 00:02:13.470 align:middle line:84% statements to see, in a way, what 00:02:13.470 --> 00:02:15.690 align:middle line:84% is happening under the bonnet, to see 00:02:15.690 --> 00:02:19.620 align:middle line:84% how different parts of the document cohere or don't cohere 00:02:19.620 --> 00:02:22.740 align:middle line:84% and what the purpose of each part of such a document is. 00:02:22.740 --> 00:02:25.380 align:middle line:84% So, this exercise is not only about 00:02:25.380 --> 00:02:28.080 align:middle line:84% what Cummings said and didn't say yesterday, 00:02:28.080 --> 00:02:32.100 align:middle line:84% but also how these documents can be useful bases for trying 00:02:32.100 --> 00:02:34.140 align:middle line:84% to work out what is being said and not 00:02:34.140 --> 00:02:35.910 align:middle line:90% said in other circumstances. 00:02:35.910 --> 00:02:39.090 align:middle line:84% In short, being able to read a witness statement 00:02:39.090 --> 00:02:42.990 align:middle line:84% properly is a valuable skill, not only for lawyers. 00:02:42.990 --> 00:02:44.490 align:middle line:84% The document which is on your screen 00:02:44.490 --> 00:02:47.700 align:middle line:84% now comprises the statement he said yesterday. 00:02:47.700 --> 00:02:51.480 align:middle line:84% However, I have added a title and the date and the place, 00:02:51.480 --> 00:02:53.520 align:middle line:84% and I have also added subheadings. 00:02:53.520 --> 00:02:56.520 align:middle line:84% The subheadings were not part of the original document. 00:02:56.520 --> 00:02:59.610 align:middle line:84% They are here for the convenience of this review. 00:02:59.610 --> 00:03:03.540 align:middle line:84% The document is set out broadly chronologically, 00:03:03.540 --> 00:03:05.580 align:middle line:84% and so that is the order we will take it. 00:03:05.580 --> 00:03:07.950 align:middle line:84% The document starts with a couple 00:03:07.950 --> 00:03:11.370 align:middle line:84% of brief comments about what happened on Thursday 00:03:11.370 --> 00:03:13.020 align:middle line:90% the 26th of March. 00:03:13.020 --> 00:03:14.970 align:middle line:90% This is where the story begins. 00:03:14.970 --> 00:03:18.690 align:middle line:84% And it starts at just around midnight 00:03:18.690 --> 00:03:20.970 align:middle line:84% with the conversation between Cummings, 00:03:20.970 --> 00:03:23.580 align:middle line:84% so he tells us, and the prime minister. 00:03:23.580 --> 00:03:27.870 align:middle line:84% The prime minister says that he tested positive for Covid. 00:03:27.870 --> 00:03:30.150 align:middle line:90% Why do we start with that date? 00:03:30.150 --> 00:03:32.880 align:middle line:84% Well, the reason why we start with the 26th 00:03:32.880 --> 00:03:35.460 align:middle line:84% and no other point in the story is, that in turn 00:03:35.460 --> 00:03:39.870 align:middle line:84% explains and contextualises what happens the next day when we 00:03:39.870 --> 00:03:42.390 align:middle line:90% move down to the 27th of March. 00:03:42.390 --> 00:03:44.550 align:middle line:90% A lot happens on this day. 00:03:44.550 --> 00:03:47.820 align:middle line:84% And it is important that we make sure we 00:03:47.820 --> 00:03:50.160 align:middle line:84% keep track of what is being said and not 00:03:50.160 --> 00:03:53.700 align:middle line:84% said in this document about what happened on that day. 00:03:53.700 --> 00:03:55.320 align:middle line:90% We start with the morning. 00:03:55.320 --> 00:03:57.540 align:middle line:84% We get the phone call from the wife, 00:03:57.540 --> 00:04:00.300 align:middle line:90% and then we get him going home. 00:04:00.300 --> 00:04:03.000 align:middle line:84% There is the reference to him running down 00:04:03.000 --> 00:04:06.630 align:middle line:84% Downing Street, which was widely reported at the time. 00:04:06.630 --> 00:04:10.650 align:middle line:84% So already this ties in with externally known information. 00:04:10.650 --> 00:04:14.160 align:middle line:84% He then returns and then goes home again. 00:04:14.160 --> 00:04:19.050 align:middle line:84% You will notice already that almost every sentence begins 00:04:19.050 --> 00:04:26.330 align:middle line:84% with the relevant person - I, she, we, the prime minister. 00:04:26.330 --> 00:04:29.520 align:middle line:84% Or, each sentence begins with where 00:04:29.520 --> 00:04:33.990 align:middle line:84% we are in the day, that evening, and so on. 00:04:33.990 --> 00:04:36.600 align:middle line:84% This is the hallmark of a document 00:04:36.600 --> 00:04:38.280 align:middle line:90% being written by lawyers. 00:04:38.280 --> 00:04:43.320 align:middle line:84% It is a very brisk, almost Hemingway-esque way of writing. 00:04:43.320 --> 00:04:46.050 align:middle line:84% Normal human beings tend not to write like this. 00:04:46.050 --> 00:04:48.810 align:middle line:84% Normal human beings will tend to begin their sentences 00:04:48.810 --> 00:04:50.980 align:middle line:90% in a whole range of ways. 00:04:50.980 --> 00:04:53.400 align:middle line:84% But if you are writing a witness statement 00:04:53.400 --> 00:04:55.750 align:middle line:84% it is always helpful and a good discipline 00:04:55.750 --> 00:04:58.410 align:middle line:84% to state at the start of each sentence 00:04:58.410 --> 00:05:01.730 align:middle line:84% who is actually the subject or object of that statement. 00:05:01.730 --> 00:05:05.515 align:middle line:84% We then come to, legally, the meat of the document. 00:05:05.515 --> 00:05:06.890 align:middle line:84% And I've put in the heading here: 00:05:06.890 --> 00:05:09.260 align:middle line:90% the reasoning for decision. 00:05:09.260 --> 00:05:11.480 align:middle line:84% Because, from a legal point of view 00:05:11.480 --> 00:05:16.010 align:middle line:84% the key purpose of this document is to show that at the point 00:05:16.010 --> 00:05:20.420 align:middle line:84% he left his house in London to commence the journey north 00:05:20.420 --> 00:05:22.430 align:middle line:90% he had a reasonable excuse. 00:05:22.430 --> 00:05:24.350 align:middle line:84% The way the law works here is that you 00:05:24.350 --> 00:05:28.100 align:middle line:84% are prohibited from leaving your house during the lockdown 00:05:28.100 --> 00:05:32.570 align:middle line:84% period unless you have a reasonable excuse. 00:05:32.570 --> 00:05:34.460 align:middle line:84% This document, although you would not 00:05:34.460 --> 00:05:37.430 align:middle line:84% notice this in the way it was originally provided, 00:05:37.430 --> 00:05:41.960 align:middle line:84% suddenly switches from narrative position. 00:05:41.960 --> 00:05:46.240 align:middle line:84% And, in a lovely touch, there are three explanations 00:05:46.240 --> 00:05:51.020 align:middle line:84% for the decision, numbered first, second, and third. 00:05:51.020 --> 00:05:54.760 align:middle line:84% Often, when you are trying to explain a decision in a witness 00:05:54.760 --> 00:05:58.250 align:middle line:84% statement which is of any legal significance, 00:05:58.250 --> 00:06:03.320 align:middle line:84% you will tend to have at least two or three reasons. 00:06:03.320 --> 00:06:05.750 align:middle line:84% This is because, if one of those reasons 00:06:05.750 --> 00:06:09.350 align:middle line:84% is knocked out or shown not to have any sound basis 00:06:09.350 --> 00:06:13.250 align:middle line:84% there is another reason there to substantiate it. 00:06:13.250 --> 00:06:17.420 align:middle line:84% One key legal vulnerability for Cummings at this point 00:06:17.420 --> 00:06:19.370 align:middle line:84% is if it is shown that at that point 00:06:19.370 --> 00:06:22.970 align:middle line:84% he left his house he did not have a reasonable excuse 00:06:22.970 --> 00:06:26.810 align:middle line:84% to leave then he could have exposure to criminal liability. 00:06:26.810 --> 00:06:30.080 align:middle line:84% And so the person who drafted this statement 00:06:30.080 --> 00:06:32.840 align:middle line:84% ensured that there were three reasons for why 00:06:32.840 --> 00:06:35.780 align:middle line:84% he left his house and has helpfully numbered them for us 00:06:35.780 --> 00:06:38.620 align:middle line:90% first, second, and third. 00:06:38.620 --> 00:06:40.740 align:middle line:84% And these are quite serious ones. 00:06:40.740 --> 00:06:44.100 align:middle line:84% The first one is his wife and he are seriously ill. 00:06:44.100 --> 00:06:47.310 align:middle line:84% The second is that his work is nationally important. 00:06:47.310 --> 00:06:49.250 align:middle line:90% The third is a security reason. 00:06:49.250 --> 00:06:51.740 align:middle line:84% You don't posit reasons like this by accident. 00:06:51.740 --> 00:06:53.480 align:middle line:84% Some thought has gone into making sure 00:06:53.480 --> 00:06:57.020 align:middle line:84% that these reasons are the reasons which would pass muster 00:06:57.020 --> 00:06:59.750 align:middle line:84% with anybody who is charged with reviewing those reasons 00:06:59.750 --> 00:07:00.870 align:middle line:90% for that decision. 00:07:00.870 --> 00:07:05.120 align:middle line:84% We then, separately, have a description 00:07:05.120 --> 00:07:09.530 align:middle line:84% of the circumstances which meant that he had to leave the house. 00:07:09.530 --> 00:07:13.520 align:middle line:84% He has, you will see, a tentative conclusion. 00:07:13.520 --> 00:07:17.390 align:middle line:84% And then he, for some reason, discusses relevant information. 00:07:17.390 --> 00:07:20.330 align:middle line:84% The offer of help, the fact that he could leave his family 00:07:20.330 --> 00:07:23.660 align:middle line:84% in a safe place, and that he had no neighbours in the normal 00:07:23.660 --> 00:07:25.880 align:middle line:90% sense of the word. 00:07:25.880 --> 00:07:30.710 align:middle line:84% Considerable thought has gone in to making the reason for him 00:07:30.710 --> 00:07:34.550 align:middle line:84% to leave that house and the considerations he adopted 00:07:34.550 --> 00:07:38.960 align:middle line:84% and the three good reasons he has as solid as possible 00:07:38.960 --> 00:07:42.560 align:middle line:84% because the key risk for him about the departure 00:07:42.560 --> 00:07:45.860 align:middle line:84% from his house is that he did not at law have a good reason. 00:07:45.860 --> 00:07:48.950 align:middle line:84% And so every possible way of showing he had a good reason 00:07:48.950 --> 00:07:50.150 align:middle line:90% has been covered. 00:07:50.150 --> 00:07:52.850 align:middle line:84% This would not happen by accident. 00:07:52.850 --> 00:07:56.240 align:middle line:84% This shows that thought has gone into structuring 00:07:56.240 --> 00:07:58.850 align:middle line:84% and the contents of this document. 00:07:58.850 --> 00:08:01.790 align:middle line:84% He also has to explain or explain away 00:08:01.790 --> 00:08:04.115 align:middle line:84% how he didn't tell the prime minister about it 00:08:04.115 --> 00:08:06.140 align:middle line:90% - the dog that does not bark. 00:08:06.140 --> 00:08:10.010 align:middle line:84% And so just to ensure that this is as complete as possible 00:08:10.010 --> 00:08:12.860 align:middle line:84% so that the lack of evidence can also be explained, 00:08:12.860 --> 00:08:16.010 align:middle line:84% that is also placed under this section. 00:08:16.010 --> 00:08:21.020 align:middle line:84% So once he has finished this detailed exposition 00:08:21.020 --> 00:08:23.010 align:middle line:84% he then returns to the narrative. 00:08:23.010 --> 00:08:26.120 align:middle line:84% This is worth highlighting because most people, when they 00:08:26.120 --> 00:08:28.670 align:middle line:84% are giving a decision about a movement 00:08:28.670 --> 00:08:31.010 align:middle line:84% will tend to mix information about the movement 00:08:31.010 --> 00:08:31.980 align:middle line:90% and the decision. 00:08:31.980 --> 00:08:33.522 align:middle line:84% But you will see that there was quite 00:08:33.522 --> 00:08:36.650 align:middle line:84% a clean break between narrative and exposition and then back 00:08:36.650 --> 00:08:37.909 align:middle line:90% to narrative. 00:08:37.909 --> 00:08:41.809 align:middle line:84% He has to explain that as somebody in this situation 00:08:41.809 --> 00:08:44.150 align:middle line:84% he did not stop so that anybody else could 00:08:44.150 --> 00:08:46.050 align:middle line:90% risk having infection. 00:08:46.050 --> 00:08:48.530 align:middle line:84% So this is explained or explained away. 00:08:48.530 --> 00:08:52.520 align:middle line:84% We then come to the 28th of March, which is a Saturday. 00:08:52.520 --> 00:08:56.270 align:middle line:84% He then has to explain what happens on that day. 00:08:56.270 --> 00:09:00.530 align:middle line:84% Significantly, it is not until the next morning, 00:09:00.530 --> 00:09:03.450 align:middle line:84% fortunately, that he's developed symptoms. 00:09:03.450 --> 00:09:07.250 align:middle line:84% And so he was able to travel north 00:09:07.250 --> 00:09:10.760 align:middle line:84% without having these symptoms, but he now clearly 00:09:10.760 --> 00:09:13.880 align:middle line:90% had them once he arrived. 00:09:13.880 --> 00:09:18.950 align:middle line:84% Because, however, very little goes to reasonable excuse 00:09:18.950 --> 00:09:22.070 align:middle line:84% after he arrives, logically, because it needs 00:09:22.070 --> 00:09:24.560 align:middle line:84% to be something you have at the point of departure, 00:09:24.560 --> 00:09:29.330 align:middle line:84% you will notice that his story becomes far less detailed, 00:09:29.330 --> 00:09:32.630 align:middle line:84% suddenly on the 28th of March, having lovingly 00:09:32.630 --> 00:09:35.450 align:middle line:84% detailed every possible thing about his decision 00:09:35.450 --> 00:09:38.300 align:middle line:90% before the 28th of March. 00:09:38.300 --> 00:09:42.890 align:middle line:84% Now, after the 28th of March, we have not a continual narrative 00:09:42.890 --> 00:09:44.900 align:middle line:84% of what happened whilst he was in Durham, 00:09:44.900 --> 00:09:49.040 align:middle line:84% but attempts to explain or explain away 00:09:49.040 --> 00:09:51.860 align:middle line:84% various pieces of evidence which emerged 00:09:51.860 --> 00:09:55.730 align:middle line:84% or could emerge about what he did in Durham. 00:09:55.730 --> 00:10:00.260 align:middle line:84% On the 2nd of April there is a journey to a hospital. 00:10:00.260 --> 00:10:05.270 align:middle line:84% Some people have said that this account lacks plausibility 00:10:05.270 --> 00:10:10.770 align:middle line:84% and that there is a certain elaborate sequence of movements 00:10:10.770 --> 00:10:15.500 align:middle line:84% which are posited here about who moves, who doesn't, who stays, 00:10:15.500 --> 00:10:16.670 align:middle line:90% who doesn't stay. 00:10:16.670 --> 00:10:19.880 align:middle line:84% It's a short passage, but it is there 00:10:19.880 --> 00:10:22.490 align:middle line:84% because it would explain any evidence 00:10:22.490 --> 00:10:25.730 align:middle line:84% to show that on the 2nd of April he or his wife 00:10:25.730 --> 00:10:27.710 align:middle line:90% were not in the cottage. 00:10:27.710 --> 00:10:31.640 align:middle line:84% We then have something which is of a known date. 00:10:31.640 --> 00:10:33.800 align:middle line:90% It is in the second week. 00:10:33.800 --> 00:10:36.560 align:middle line:84% He tried to walk outside the house. 00:10:36.560 --> 00:10:39.350 align:middle line:84% Fortunately, the house adjoins woods 00:10:39.350 --> 00:10:41.460 align:middle line:90% which are owned by his father. 00:10:41.460 --> 00:10:45.770 align:middle line:84% And so he went into these woods, and he was seen. 00:10:45.770 --> 00:10:49.730 align:middle line:84% This is significant because it explains or explains away 00:10:49.730 --> 00:10:52.100 align:middle line:84% evidence that he was not in his cottage 00:10:52.100 --> 00:10:54.170 align:middle line:90% on that particular time. 00:10:54.170 --> 00:10:56.000 align:middle line:84% However, he does not know what date 00:10:56.000 --> 00:10:57.900 align:middle line:90% that evidence would emerge. 00:10:57.900 --> 00:11:01.550 align:middle line:84% And so he is not actually put the date on this. 00:11:01.550 --> 00:11:05.000 align:middle line:84% We then move on to the 11th of April. 00:11:05.000 --> 00:11:07.850 align:middle line:84% He's still feeling weak and exhausted. 00:11:07.850 --> 00:11:11.000 align:middle line:84% But other than that, he had no Covid symptoms. 00:11:11.000 --> 00:11:13.940 align:middle line:84% He thought he would be able to work the following week, 00:11:13.940 --> 00:11:15.740 align:middle line:90% possibly part time. 00:11:15.740 --> 00:11:17.810 align:middle line:90% This is a Saturday. 00:11:17.810 --> 00:11:22.250 align:middle line:84% The importance of the date is that, around this time, 00:11:22.250 --> 00:11:25.670 align:middle line:84% it could be argued that he had done the 14 days necessary 00:11:25.670 --> 00:11:28.310 align:middle line:84% of self-isolation because he would not 00:11:28.310 --> 00:11:32.200 align:middle line:84% be able to legitimately, in accordance with guidance, 00:11:32.200 --> 00:11:35.160 align:middle line:84% travel back within those 14 days. 00:11:35.160 --> 00:11:37.970 align:middle line:84% And so interestingly, just before the key 00:11:37.970 --> 00:11:41.810 align:middle line:84% date about one event in and around Durham, 00:11:41.810 --> 00:11:43.550 align:middle line:90% the day before is mentioned. 00:11:43.550 --> 00:11:48.590 align:middle line:84% It is, by his account, the 14th day after he had first 00:11:48.590 --> 00:11:49.530 align:middle line:90% developed symptoms. 00:11:49.530 --> 00:11:52.370 align:middle line:84% We know that because he expressly says on the 12 00:11:52.370 --> 00:11:54.650 align:middle line:90% April that it was the 15th day. 00:11:54.650 --> 00:11:58.610 align:middle line:84% The impression this gave me is that this date had 00:11:58.610 --> 00:12:00.830 align:middle line:84% been selected for part of the narrative 00:12:00.830 --> 00:12:03.590 align:middle line:90% because it was on that 14th day. 00:12:03.590 --> 00:12:07.970 align:middle line:84% He says that he sought expert medical advice. 00:12:07.970 --> 00:12:11.690 align:middle line:84% He explained the symptoms and all the timings 00:12:11.690 --> 00:12:16.200 align:middle line:84% and asked if it was safe to go back to work on the Monday, 00:12:16.200 --> 00:12:18.980 align:middle line:84% Tuesday, seek child care, and so on. 00:12:18.980 --> 00:12:23.000 align:middle line:84% I was told that it was safe, and I could return and seek 00:12:23.000 --> 00:12:24.050 align:middle line:90% childcare. 00:12:24.050 --> 00:12:27.440 align:middle line:84% So on the 14th day, he got that information. 00:12:27.440 --> 00:12:29.510 align:middle line:84% This is important, not only looking 00:12:29.510 --> 00:12:32.750 align:middle line:84% backwards so that it was the 14th day since he went 00:12:32.750 --> 00:12:35.990 align:middle line:84% into self-isolation, but because it also 00:12:35.990 --> 00:12:38.180 align:middle line:84% explains that he was able to do what 00:12:38.180 --> 00:12:40.550 align:middle line:90% he did on the 12th of April. 00:12:40.550 --> 00:12:43.520 align:middle line:84% The 12th of April is a significant date 00:12:43.520 --> 00:12:44.810 align:middle line:90% in this narrative. 00:12:44.810 --> 00:12:47.030 align:middle line:90% 12th of April was a Sunday. 00:12:47.030 --> 00:12:49.220 align:middle line:90% It happened to be Easter Sunday. 00:12:49.220 --> 00:12:53.810 align:middle line:84% According to certain reports, it also happened, fortuitously, 00:12:53.810 --> 00:12:56.700 align:middle line:90% to be the birthday of his wife. 00:12:56.700 --> 00:13:01.580 align:middle line:84% But the main reason why this day is here in this statement 00:13:01.580 --> 00:13:06.410 align:middle line:84% is because this was the date of his trip to Barnard Castle. 00:13:06.410 --> 00:13:10.820 align:middle line:84% It is a fascinating account, just over about two, 00:13:10.820 --> 00:13:13.830 align:middle line:84% three paragraphs, as we've restructured it here. 00:13:13.830 --> 00:13:15.710 align:middle line:90% It is worth looking carefully. 00:13:15.710 --> 00:13:19.640 align:middle line:84% Again, almost every sentence begins 00:13:19.640 --> 00:13:23.510 align:middle line:84% with the relevant person or the time of day 00:13:23.510 --> 00:13:24.570 align:middle line:90% or what they were doing. 00:13:24.570 --> 00:13:31.460 align:middle line:84% So on Sunday, my wife, she, we, we, we, we, I, we, we - 00:13:31.460 --> 00:13:37.610 align:middle line:84% if anybody, like me, is a fan of Dominic Cummings's blog posts, 00:13:37.610 --> 00:13:40.910 align:middle line:84% you would think that he had developed a very 00:13:40.910 --> 00:13:43.090 align:middle line:90% different style of writing. 00:13:43.090 --> 00:13:47.640 align:middle line:84% Instead of his elaborate, almost rambling style 00:13:47.640 --> 00:13:49.700 align:middle line:84% in his blog posts, which are more 00:13:49.700 --> 00:13:52.070 align:middle line:84% akin to James Joyce or Virginia Woolf, 00:13:52.070 --> 00:13:56.510 align:middle line:84% we get Philip Larkin mixed with Ernest Hemingway. 00:13:56.510 --> 00:14:00.440 align:middle line:84% Every single sentence is as sharp as possible 00:14:00.440 --> 00:14:01.790 align:middle line:90% apart from one. 00:14:01.790 --> 00:14:05.000 align:middle line:84% If you go down this narrative, a short sharp shock 00:14:05.000 --> 00:14:08.570 align:middle line:84% of every sentence, starting with either the person 00:14:08.570 --> 00:14:13.250 align:middle line:84% or the time of day, stops and suddenly changes to, 00:14:13.250 --> 00:14:17.210 align:middle line:84% but at no point did we break any social distancing rules. 00:14:17.210 --> 00:14:19.940 align:middle line:84% The only departure from the sharp style 00:14:19.940 --> 00:14:24.890 align:middle line:84% is when he claims or disclaims the point in respect 00:14:24.890 --> 00:14:27.110 align:middle line:90% of compliance with the rules. 00:14:27.110 --> 00:14:30.960 align:middle line:84% If you look at this passage carefully, the content of it, 00:14:30.960 --> 00:14:35.520 align:middle line:84% you will see that it is having to do a number of tasks. 00:14:35.520 --> 00:14:40.460 align:middle line:84% It is having to explain how it could possibly be that somebody 00:14:40.460 --> 00:14:42.683 align:middle line:90% saw him in Barnard Castle. 00:14:42.683 --> 00:14:44.350 align:middle line:84% It also explains how somebody could have 00:14:44.350 --> 00:14:47.370 align:middle line:84% possibly also have seen him in the woods outside. 00:14:47.370 --> 00:14:49.250 align:middle line:84% He is also having to explain why he 00:14:49.250 --> 00:14:52.640 align:middle line:84% was able to be seen by a man in Barnard Castle 00:14:52.640 --> 00:14:54.920 align:middle line:84% and by people in the woods outside 00:14:54.920 --> 00:14:57.590 align:middle line:84% and also maintain social distancing. 00:14:57.590 --> 00:15:02.180 align:middle line:84% But the main thing this passage has to achieve, 00:15:02.180 --> 00:15:05.330 align:middle line:84% from a legal perspective, is to explain how, 00:15:05.330 --> 00:15:09.290 align:middle line:84% for this excursion, which was not in the woods 00:15:09.290 --> 00:15:11.390 align:middle line:84% on his father's estate and so was 00:15:11.390 --> 00:15:14.330 align:middle line:84% outside of his private property, his home, 00:15:14.330 --> 00:15:19.550 align:middle line:84% how this excursion also met the legal requirement that he 00:15:19.550 --> 00:15:24.410 align:middle line:84% have a reasonable excuse for leaving his house. 00:15:24.410 --> 00:15:27.140 align:middle line:84% Unfortunately, for the person drafting this statement, 00:15:27.140 --> 00:15:32.360 align:middle line:84% there is far less to go on than previously for the journey 00:15:32.360 --> 00:15:34.400 align:middle line:90% from London to Durham. 00:15:34.400 --> 00:15:37.880 align:middle line:84% And so what we have is an explanation, 00:15:37.880 --> 00:15:42.740 align:middle line:84% an odd explanation, which many would find unconvincing, 00:15:42.740 --> 00:15:46.850 align:middle line:84% about him having faulty eyesight and that he 00:15:46.850 --> 00:15:52.340 align:middle line:84% was going to do a drive from where he was to Barnard Castle, 00:15:52.340 --> 00:15:55.880 align:middle line:84% which was not the deliberate goal of his journey. 00:15:55.880 --> 00:15:59.600 align:middle line:84% You will see he says, we drove for roughly half an hour 00:15:59.600 --> 00:16:03.950 align:middle line:84% and ended up, as if like magic, on the outskirts of Barnard 00:16:03.950 --> 00:16:06.080 align:middle line:84% Castle, as if that is the sort of thing 00:16:06.080 --> 00:16:08.630 align:middle line:84% you just come across when you drive for half an hour, 00:16:08.630 --> 00:16:10.940 align:middle line:90% a major tourist attraction. 00:16:10.940 --> 00:16:12.650 align:middle line:90% But they don't visit it. 00:16:12.650 --> 00:16:15.800 align:middle line:84% But you will see that, again, he keeps on saying 00:16:15.800 --> 00:16:17.270 align:middle line:90% that it's about safety. 00:16:17.270 --> 00:16:20.180 align:middle line:84% And it would appear to me that this passage here 00:16:20.180 --> 00:16:24.890 align:middle line:84% is an attempt to explain why this excursion to Barnard 00:16:24.890 --> 00:16:27.290 align:middle line:90% Castle was a reasonable excuse. 00:16:27.290 --> 00:16:28.760 align:middle line:84% That it was to ensure that he was 00:16:28.760 --> 00:16:33.380 align:middle line:84% in a sufficiently able state to take the journey south. 00:16:33.380 --> 00:16:38.580 align:middle line:84% The problem here is that, unlike the references to safety, 00:16:38.580 --> 00:16:41.780 align:middle line:84% national importance, and health of the child and family 00:16:41.780 --> 00:16:45.080 align:middle line:84% and child care, which he had for the journey north, none of that 00:16:45.080 --> 00:16:47.810 align:middle line:84% is present for his journey to Barnard Castle. 00:16:47.810 --> 00:16:49.340 align:middle line:84% And so what we have is an attempt 00:16:49.340 --> 00:16:53.570 align:middle line:84% to show that it really was about health and safety. 00:16:53.570 --> 00:16:57.440 align:middle line:84% But in my view, it is a preposterous explanation. 00:16:57.440 --> 00:16:58.460 align:middle line:90% It doesn't add up. 00:16:58.460 --> 00:17:02.060 align:middle line:84% In my view, anybody worrying about eyesight problems 00:17:02.060 --> 00:17:05.030 align:middle line:84% would have been better to follow the explicit guidance 00:17:05.030 --> 00:17:07.819 align:middle line:84% in the highway code of being able to test your eyesight 00:17:07.819 --> 00:17:10.280 align:middle line:90% before taking to the road. 00:17:10.280 --> 00:17:11.690 align:middle line:90% He does not do so. 00:17:11.690 --> 00:17:15.619 align:middle line:84% It is also interesting, almost like the bullet of Kennedy, 00:17:15.619 --> 00:17:18.859 align:middle line:84% how often he manages to keep on getting out of his car. 00:17:18.859 --> 00:17:22.140 align:middle line:84% So you will see in the second paragraph of this section, 00:17:22.140 --> 00:17:23.390 align:middle line:90% we headed home. 00:17:23.390 --> 00:17:25.250 align:middle line:84% My wife and I jumped out into the woods 00:17:25.250 --> 00:17:26.869 align:middle line:90% by the side of the road. 00:17:26.869 --> 00:17:29.330 align:middle line:90% They were briefly outside them. 00:17:29.330 --> 00:17:31.490 align:middle line:90% I briefly joined them. 00:17:31.490 --> 00:17:34.920 align:middle line:84% They played for a little bit, and then 00:17:34.920 --> 00:17:37.827 align:middle line:84% he again gets out of the car and goes outside, 00:17:37.827 --> 00:17:39.660 align:middle line:84% even though, according to his own narrative, 00:17:39.660 --> 00:17:42.030 align:middle line:84% he had already briefly joined them outside. 00:17:42.030 --> 00:17:44.070 align:middle line:84% They were then briefly in the woods. 00:17:44.070 --> 00:17:47.910 align:middle line:84% And then we come to the point of this fairly convoluted 00:17:47.910 --> 00:17:51.540 align:middle line:84% and, in my view, unconvincing narrative. 00:17:51.540 --> 00:17:54.540 align:middle line:84% We saw some people at a distance, but at no point 00:17:54.540 --> 00:17:57.120 align:middle line:84% did we break any social distancing rules. 00:17:57.120 --> 00:18:01.770 align:middle line:84% You will see that they are so eager to explain away 00:18:01.770 --> 00:18:03.720 align:middle line:84% how he was able to be seen in the woods 00:18:03.720 --> 00:18:08.010 align:middle line:84% as well as by the castle, maintain social distancing, 00:18:08.010 --> 00:18:10.080 align:middle line:84% and also have a valid explanation 00:18:10.080 --> 00:18:12.030 align:middle line:90% for having left the property. 00:18:12.030 --> 00:18:17.190 align:middle line:84% In my view, this does not accord with Regulation 6. 00:18:17.190 --> 00:18:20.730 align:middle line:84% And this is where I think he would face more 00:18:20.730 --> 00:18:23.100 align:middle line:90% exposure under the regulations. 00:18:23.100 --> 00:18:25.710 align:middle line:84% Of course, it would be a matter for a court 00:18:25.710 --> 00:18:28.150 align:middle line:84% to adjudicate on any criminal liability. 00:18:28.150 --> 00:18:30.960 align:middle line:84% Now, we have the explanation of the 12th. 00:18:30.960 --> 00:18:34.410 align:middle line:84% We then go on to the explanation for what happened the next day. 00:18:34.410 --> 00:18:36.690 align:middle line:90% We returned to London. 00:18:36.690 --> 00:18:40.080 align:middle line:84% At no point between arriving, leaving Durham, did any of them 00:18:40.080 --> 00:18:43.890 align:middle line:84% arrive, enter the parents' house, and the only exchanges. 00:18:43.890 --> 00:18:48.120 align:middle line:84% And so what we have here is an explanation 00:18:48.120 --> 00:18:52.250 align:middle line:84% for how they then made the journey back on the 13th, 00:18:52.250 --> 00:18:54.160 align:middle line:90% that it was safe. 00:18:54.160 --> 00:18:58.560 align:middle line:84% He has less reason to have to explain away his journey back 00:18:58.560 --> 00:19:03.140 align:middle line:84% to London and to work because the regulations are clear, 00:19:03.140 --> 00:19:05.820 align:middle line:84% that if you are moving to your own property 00:19:05.820 --> 00:19:08.790 align:middle line:84% or you are moving for the purposes of work, 00:19:08.790 --> 00:19:12.300 align:middle line:84% that is a valid, reasonable excuse under the regulations. 00:19:12.300 --> 00:19:15.120 align:middle line:84% And so this point is not laboured here because it 00:19:15.120 --> 00:19:16.290 align:middle line:90% doesn't need to. 00:19:16.290 --> 00:19:18.660 align:middle line:84% And there can be no complaint under the regulations 00:19:18.660 --> 00:19:22.440 align:middle line:84% about his journey back to London or to work. 00:19:22.440 --> 00:19:24.510 align:middle line:84% It was the journey up there and the journey 00:19:24.510 --> 00:19:28.470 align:middle line:84% to Barnard Castle which is more legally problematic. 00:19:28.470 --> 00:19:31.260 align:middle line:84% The rest of the statement then deals with various odds 00:19:31.260 --> 00:19:33.540 align:middle line:84% and ends and makes some general statements. 00:19:33.540 --> 00:19:36.470 align:middle line:84% There is a denial, a fairly robust one, 00:19:36.470 --> 00:19:39.060 align:middle line:84% that he could not have been there on the 19th of April 00:19:39.060 --> 00:19:43.020 align:middle line:84% as reported, which is the only time he actually goads people 00:19:43.020 --> 00:19:45.150 align:middle line:84% to trying to look at external evidence 00:19:45.150 --> 00:19:47.400 align:middle line:84% and even invites people implicitly to have 00:19:47.400 --> 00:19:50.010 align:middle line:84% a look at the data on his telephone, 00:19:50.010 --> 00:19:52.990 align:middle line:84% which, interestingly, he doesn't mention 00:19:52.990 --> 00:19:55.650 align:middle line:84% at any other point in this statement before that. 00:19:55.650 --> 00:20:01.440 align:middle line:84% He even refers to the death of his uncle, which curiously here 00:20:01.440 --> 00:20:03.550 align:middle line:84% is called his, my mother's brother. 00:20:03.550 --> 00:20:05.520 align:middle line:84% Sir John Laws was one of the greatest appeal 00:20:05.520 --> 00:20:06.990 align:middle line:90% judges of recent times. 00:20:06.990 --> 00:20:10.770 align:middle line:84% And there had been speculation that his ill-health 00:20:10.770 --> 00:20:13.920 align:middle line:84% and his death was one reason which could have influenced 00:20:13.920 --> 00:20:17.280 align:middle line:84% some of the decision-making and conduct described 00:20:17.280 --> 00:20:18.690 align:middle line:90% in the statement. 00:20:18.690 --> 00:20:21.570 align:middle line:90% He then puts that to one side. 00:20:21.570 --> 00:20:23.760 align:middle line:84% He then, at the end, makes a number 00:20:23.760 --> 00:20:26.310 align:middle line:84% of general comments and justifications, which 00:20:26.310 --> 00:20:29.250 align:middle line:90% go back to what he said before. 00:20:29.250 --> 00:20:32.910 align:middle line:84% You will see that these are, I believe, I thought, 00:20:32.910 --> 00:20:36.970 align:middle line:84% I understand, I know, I thought, and so on. 00:20:36.970 --> 00:20:39.660 align:middle line:84% Everything is put in his own subjective view. 00:20:39.660 --> 00:20:41.850 align:middle line:84% But these are attempts for him to describe 00:20:41.850 --> 00:20:44.760 align:middle line:90% his overall frame of mind. 00:20:44.760 --> 00:20:47.670 align:middle line:84% And then, finally, we get two things. 00:20:47.670 --> 00:20:51.540 align:middle line:84% He has to explain when he said this to the prime minister. 00:20:51.540 --> 00:20:53.340 align:middle line:90% He, again, is vague. 00:20:53.340 --> 00:20:55.620 align:middle line:84% Even though previously he had said 00:20:55.620 --> 00:20:57.960 align:middle line:84% that people could look at his telephone data, 00:20:57.960 --> 00:21:00.990 align:middle line:84% he did not look at his telephone to find out when this phone 00:21:00.990 --> 00:21:03.780 align:middle line:90% call was taken or made. 00:21:03.780 --> 00:21:07.990 align:middle line:84% He also has to explain why he didn't actually tell anybody. 00:21:07.990 --> 00:21:10.530 align:middle line:84% And then, at the end, there is a passage 00:21:10.530 --> 00:21:13.470 align:middle line:84% where, although a great deal is said, 00:21:13.470 --> 00:21:17.770 align:middle line:84% I understand, I know, and I know, I wanted to explain, 00:21:17.770 --> 00:21:22.260 align:middle line:84% and I think, there is not an, I apologise. 00:21:22.260 --> 00:21:24.180 align:middle line:90% That is not an I am sorry. 00:21:24.180 --> 00:21:28.320 align:middle line:90% There is not even a I regret. 00:21:28.320 --> 00:21:32.340 align:middle line:84% What he is doing here is robustly, 00:21:32.340 --> 00:21:35.430 align:middle line:84% asserting that, because of what went before, 00:21:35.430 --> 00:21:36.960 align:middle line:90% he did nothing wrong. 00:21:36.960 --> 00:21:41.340 align:middle line:84% And so this brings us to the end of the statement. 00:21:41.340 --> 00:21:43.710 align:middle line:84% You will notice, at the end of the statement 00:21:43.710 --> 00:21:46.230 align:middle line:90% there is blank space. 00:21:46.230 --> 00:21:48.990 align:middle line:84% If this was a witness statement that blank space would 00:21:48.990 --> 00:21:51.510 align:middle line:84% have what's called a statement of truth 00:21:51.510 --> 00:21:55.578 align:middle line:84% where somebody has to state, under peril of perjury, 00:21:55.578 --> 00:21:57.870 align:middle line:84% that they believe the statements in a witness statement 00:21:57.870 --> 00:21:59.190 align:middle line:90% to be true. 00:21:59.190 --> 00:22:01.290 align:middle line:84% Obviously, this is a statement which he read out, 00:22:01.290 --> 00:22:04.140 align:middle line:84% so it wasn't really a witness statement. 00:22:04.140 --> 00:22:07.800 align:middle line:84% But one would ask whether, if this was a witness statement, 00:22:07.800 --> 00:22:10.770 align:middle line:84% he would actually sign that statement 00:22:10.770 --> 00:22:12.630 align:middle line:90% as a statement of truth. 00:22:12.630 --> 00:22:15.090 align:middle line:84% And the reason why I mentioned this point 00:22:15.090 --> 00:22:19.170 align:middle line:84% is that, if you recall, before the prorogation case, nobody 00:22:19.170 --> 00:22:22.350 align:middle line:84% in government, no minister, no adviser, 00:22:22.350 --> 00:22:25.350 align:middle line:84% no official could be found to sign a witness 00:22:25.350 --> 00:22:28.470 align:middle line:84% statement explaining why the government had 00:22:28.470 --> 00:22:32.910 align:middle line:84% sought a five-week prorogation in the run up to Brexit. 00:22:32.910 --> 00:22:37.370 align:middle line:84% And that was why, effectively, the government lost the case 00:22:37.370 --> 00:22:38.940 align:middle line:90% at the Supreme Court. 00:22:38.940 --> 00:22:43.020 align:middle line:84% This document took a lot of time to write. 00:22:43.020 --> 00:22:46.110 align:middle line:90% It repays close attention. 00:22:46.110 --> 00:22:52.290 align:middle line:84% Every sentence here is doing at least one job; 00:22:52.290 --> 00:22:56.340 align:middle line:84% to explain evidence, to explain away evidence, 00:22:56.340 --> 00:22:59.430 align:middle line:84% to show reasonable belief, to try and show 00:22:59.430 --> 00:23:04.860 align:middle line:84% that certain decisions were made on the best possible basis. 00:23:04.860 --> 00:23:08.820 align:middle line:84% I have no doubt that this document 00:23:08.820 --> 00:23:14.550 align:middle line:84% was drafted by a lawyer unless somehow Dominic Cummings had 00:23:14.550 --> 00:23:18.120 align:middle line:84% changed his writing style from that shown in his blog posts 00:23:18.120 --> 00:23:22.380 align:middle line:84% to somebody who is a skilled settler of witness statements. 00:23:22.380 --> 00:23:25.710 align:middle line:84% But a lawyer drafting a witness statement 00:23:25.710 --> 00:23:28.230 align:middle line:84% is only as good as the information which they 00:23:28.230 --> 00:23:30.720 align:middle line:90% have to hand or can verify. 00:23:30.720 --> 00:23:35.700 align:middle line:84% This statement was compiled at speed over a weekend. 00:23:35.700 --> 00:23:39.910 align:middle line:84% It is impressive that it's as good as it is. 00:23:39.910 --> 00:23:42.300 align:middle line:84% But to the extent to which this information actually 00:23:42.300 --> 00:23:45.480 align:middle line:84% contains things which may or may not be true 00:23:45.480 --> 00:23:47.318 align:middle line:84% isn't the fault of the person who wrote it. 00:23:47.318 --> 00:23:49.110 align:middle line:84% It would not be the fault of the person who 00:23:49.110 --> 00:23:50.260 align:middle line:90% drafted the statement. 00:23:50.260 --> 00:23:52.470 align:middle line:84% It would be the fault of the person who provided 00:23:52.470 --> 00:23:54.900 align:middle line:90% the underlying information. 00:23:54.900 --> 00:23:57.450 align:middle line:84% This is just one example of a witness statement. 00:23:57.450 --> 00:23:58.980 align:middle line:90% You will often find others. 00:23:58.980 --> 00:24:01.110 align:middle line:84% During the Leveson inquiry the witness statements 00:24:01.110 --> 00:24:03.930 align:middle line:84% put forward by News Group showed that there 00:24:03.930 --> 00:24:07.770 align:middle line:84% had been various incidents which we were able to show turned out 00:24:07.770 --> 00:24:08.640 align:middle line:90% to be hacking. 00:24:08.640 --> 00:24:11.700 align:middle line:84% Close reading of witness statements is a valuable skill. 00:24:11.700 --> 00:24:16.260 align:middle line:84% But the key is to work out why each sentence is the way it is, 00:24:16.260 --> 00:24:19.770 align:middle line:84% why each paragraph and proposition is the way it is, 00:24:19.770 --> 00:24:23.760 align:middle line:84% and what also is not stated which could be stated. 00:24:23.760 --> 00:24:27.060 align:middle line:84% Thank you for joining me on this guided tour of this statement. 00:24:27.060 --> 00:24:30.660 align:middle line:84% It is worth reading in and of itself, not only 00:24:30.660 --> 00:24:34.540 align:middle line:84% to follow what is happening with the current political crisis, 00:24:34.540 --> 00:24:36.120 align:middle line:84% but as a way of showing that when 00:24:36.120 --> 00:24:40.260 align:middle line:84% faced with a serious risk of liability or exposure 00:24:40.260 --> 00:24:42.570 align:middle line:84% to liability, how somebody with access 00:24:42.570 --> 00:24:46.020 align:middle line:84% to lawyers and with a certain degree of power 00:24:46.020 --> 00:24:48.600 align:middle line:84% and determination can structure what 00:24:48.600 --> 00:24:50.610 align:middle line:84% happened in a way which makes it as difficult as 00:24:50.610 --> 00:24:56.430 align:middle line:84% possible for that liability to actually be imposed upon them.