Contrary to the recent judgement of Mrs Justice Lang in the case of R v Transport for London and the Mayor of London Ex p. Core Issues Trust Limited  EWHC 2628 (Admin) – I find that Boris Johnson did indeed lie to the High Court.
In May of this year Boris Johnson submitted a signed witness statement to the High Court in which he claimed: “I did not instruct TfL to do anything”
This statement by Boris Johnson is a lie. Now, it doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that Boris Johnson would lie to the High Court, but what really beggars belief is the fact that Mrs Justice Lang chose to accept what is obviously a barefaced lie.
There is no reason to suppose that Mrs Justice Lang is mentally deficient, or that she doesn’t have a perfectly good grasp of the meaning of the word ‘instruct’ – and so the just, reasonable and fair-minded person can only conclude that Mrs Justice Lang knew full well that Boris Johnson lied to the High Court but chose to exonerate him anyway. There’s a word for this kind of behaviour and it begins with C. When justice is miscarried as flagrantly as in this case, it brings the High Court into disrepute and causes right-minded citizens to view the judiciary with contempt.
This case centred on Mayor of London Boris Johnson’s decision to ban from London buses an advertisement which he and the homosexual lobby disliked. On the 12th April 2012 Boris Johnson took the credit in the press for banning the advert, but two years later he lied to the High Court with his claim that he didn’t instruct TfL to do anything.
At the time Boris Johnson instructed TfL to pull the adverts, his Communications Director wrote that “Boris has instructed tfl to pull the adverts” [in an email reply to Deputy Mayor Richard Barnes] and, just a few weeks later, Boris Johnson also wrote [to Hazel Blears MP] stating that TfL were “instructed” by him to ban the adverts.
This evidence was available to Mrs Justice Lang but, perversely, she chose to accept the argument made on behalf of Boris Johnson by his lawyers that when he instructed TfL to pull the adverts this didn’t actually mean that he had instructed TfL to pull the adverts at all, but only that he had expressed his opinion on the matter, an opinion which need not be obeyed!
So, Boris Johnson had told the media he was responsible for banning the adverts, and explicitly told an MP in writing that the ban was “instructed” by him personally, but subsequently told the High Court that he didn’t instruct TfL to do anything. It is crystal clear that Boris Johnson lied to the High Court, and truly remarkable that Mrs Justice Lang chose to accept the ridiculous and laughable claim that instruct doesn’t mean instruct but instead can mean whatever Boris Johnson wants it to mean, such as to opine, to suggest, to advise… but definitely not to instruct!
Tellingly, Mrs Justice Lang delivered her abominable judgement having declined cross examination of Boris Johnson and refused computer forensic checks as to the accuracy of his statements.
In the context in which Boris Johnson and his spin doctor used the word instruct – and especially given Boris’ boasting to the press of his action – the word instruct can only mean instruct and it cannot possibly mean anything else. Instruct means instruct (i.e. command); it doesn’t mean anything other than instruct; it cannot mean to merely suggest.
As Boris Johnson once quipped, “My policy on cake is still pro having it and pro eating it!” Well Boris, Mrs Justice Lang let you get away with it, but, speaking on behalf of every right-minded person in the real world, we all know you lied.