Johnson deliberately misled parliament over Partygate, damning report finds

Privileges committee also details how ex-PM was part of a campaign to abuse and intimidate MPs investigating him

• Boris Johnson misled MPs over Partygate, report finds – live

Boris Johnson deliberately misled parliament over Partygate and was part of a campaign to abuse and intimidate MPs investigating him, according to a damning official inquiry that threatens to further tear apart the Conservative party.

The long-awaited report by the privileges committee said the former prime minister would have faced a 90-day suspension from the Commons had he not quit in rage at its conclusions last week.

Misleading the Commons by claiming Covid rules and guidance were followed at all times in No 10 on four separate occasions as well as when he purported to correct the record; failing to tell MPs about his own knowledge of the gatherings; claiming he received “repeated reassurances” that rules had not been broken – when just two people had made the suggestion.

Misleading the committee when he presented his evidence, many aspects of which were “not credible”; being “disingenuous” when putting forward his interpretation of government guidance; repeatedly insisting No 10 gatherings were within the rules because they were work events even though it was “highly unlikely” he genuinely believed all guidance was followed.

“Egregious” breach of confidence when he lashed out at the committee’s provisional findings in his shock resignation, having received an advance draft; leaking parts of the draft within 24 hours despite being specifically warned not to by the committee.

Impugning the committee by accusing it of “egregious bias” and likening it to a “kangaroo court” in a lengthy resignation statement which accused it of mounting a “political hit job” on him; doing so when he knew the committee would be unable to make a “substantive response”, meaning his assertions would go unchallenged.

Being complicit in a “campaign of abuse and intimidation” against the committee that amounted to “an attack on our democratic institutions”; being “insincere” in his attempts to distance himself from the attacks on committee members, having previously claimed he had the “utmost respect” for its work; claiming the report “reeked of prejudice” which was a further attempt to undermine the parliamentary process.