Monitoring Officer activities

Below are activities conducted by the Greater London Authority's Monitoring Officer. Find out more about the Monitoring Officer.

 

Greater London Authority news release - 27 September 2019

Monitoring Officer of the Greater London Authority refers Boris Johnson to Independent Office for Police Conduct

The Monitoring Officer of the Greater London Authority (GLA) has today recorded a ‘conduct matter’ against Boris Johnson and referred him to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) so it can assess whether or not it is necessary to investigate the former Mayor of London for the criminal offence of misconduct in public office.

The ‘conduct matter’ has been recorded as allegations have been brought to the attention of the Monitoring Officer that Boris Johnson maintained a friendship with Jennifer Arcuri and as a result of that friendship allowed Ms Arcuri to participate in trade missions and receive sponsorship monies in circumstances when she and her companies could not have expected otherwise to receive those benefits.  

The Monitoring Officer has a statutory duty to record any conduct matters that she becomes aware of relating to the Mayor is his capacity as equivalent to Police and Crime Commissioner for Greater London, which is called the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC).

A ‘conduct matter’ exists where there is information that indicates that a criminal offence may have been committed. It does not mean that this is proved in any way. The IOPC will now consider if it is necessary for the matter to be investigated.

The action has been taken in accordance with the Elected Local Policing Bodies (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012 (the ‘2012 Regulations’) and section 31 and Schedule 7 (Chapter 4) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (‘the 2011 Act’).

Information for reporters:

The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime came into existence in January 2012 and Boris Johnson became its statutory ‘occupant’ is his capacity as the then Mayor of London. 

At that point, Boris Johnson became subject to the provisions as to conduct contained in Chapter 4 of the 2011 Act including the 2012 Regulations.

The Mayor is responsible for policing policy for the capital and holding the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to account. As a result, a special standards framework applies to the Mayor. This is set out in the 2011 Act and 2012 Regulations. Any indication of potential involvement of a crime must be passed by the Monitoring Officer to the IOPC for investigation.

The GLA’s Monitoring Officer continues to have jurisdiction concerning such conduct and to exercise the functions of a police and crime panel under the 2012 Regulations in respect of his conduct during that time.

A copy of the text of the letter sent to the IOPC is below:

Dear Prime Minister, 
 
I am the Monitoring Officer of the Greater London Authority (“GLA”).   
 
I write, in that capacity, to inform you that I have today recorded a “conduct matter” against you and consequently today referred the conduct matter to Mr Michael Lockwood, the Director-General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct (“IOPC”) for him to determine whether or not it is necessary for the matter to be investigated in accordance with the relevant regulations, to which I later refer.   
 
The conduct matter relates to your time as Mayor of London between 2008 and 2016. During this time it has been brought to my attention that you maintained a friendship with Ms Jennifer Arcuri and as a result of that friendship allowed Ms Arcuri to participate in Trade Missions and receive sponsorship monies in circumstances when she and her companies could not have expected otherwise to receive those benefits.   
 
This action has been taken in accordance with the Elected Local Policing Bodies (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 20121 (the “2012 Regulations”) and section 31 and Schedule 7 (Chapter 4) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (“the 2011 Act”). This letter provides you with an explanation of the reasons for taking that action and stands as a record of the determinations I have made under the 2012 Regulations, as well as formal notification of the referral for the purposes of regulation 13(6)2. 
 
As the GLA’s Monitoring Officer I discharge the statutory functions of a police and crime panel under the 2012 Regulations and 2011 Act. I do this under a delegation from the London Assembly Police and Crime Committee, which is the police and crime panel for the Greater London Metropolitan Police District.  
 
The legal position 
On 16 January 2012, in accordance with section 3 of the 2011 Act, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC), a corporation sole, came into existence and you became the statutory “occupant “of MOPAC in your capacity as Mayor of London. At that point you became subject to the provisions as to conduct contained in Chapter 4 of the 2011 Act including the 2012 Regulations which came into force on the same date.   
 
The 2011 Act applies to any conduct during the period when you were the occupant of MOPAC (“the Relevant Period”).  
 
As the occupant of MOPAC you were the holder of a “relevant office”. I refer later to the definition of conduct matter. Essentially it is an indication there may have been the commission by you of a criminal offence.     
 
You were Mayor of London when MOPAC came into being and became its occupant on 16 January 2012. Therefore between 16 January 2012 and 8 May 20163 (“the Relevant Dates”) you were subject to the 2011 Act and 2012 Regulations regarding conduct, including in your capacities as Mayor of London and the occupant of MOPAC. 
 
I continue to have jurisdiction concerning such conduct and to exercise the functions of a police and crime panel under the 2012 Regulations in respect of your conduct during that time. 
 
Current allegations 
Matters have recently come to my attention from the Media and elsewhere regarding your conduct between the Relevant Dates. In broad terms they appear to involve the following matters: 
 
2013:London & Partners (L&P), the Mayor’s promotional agency, provided Ms Jennifer Arcuri’s (JA) company, Innotech with £10,000 sponsorship for an event at the World Islamic Economic Forum. 
 
2014:L&P paid Innotech £1,500 to sponsor an event in Parliament.  
 
Nov 2014:JA applied to attend the Trade Mission in Singapore via her company, Innotech. The application was declined.  
JA re-applied to attend via her company, Playbox. The application was successful, and JA attended the Trade Mission to Singapore and Malaysia.  
 
Feb 2015:Although JA did not qualify to attend a Trade Mission to New York she was allowed to attend and participate in some events even though she was not an official member of the delegation.  
 
Nov 2015:JA’s application to attend the Trade Mission to Israel was rejected however JA was able to go on and secure permission to attend. 
 
The offence of misconduct in public office has been publicly raised and so I have to consider whether that offence is potentially involved.  
 
Conduct matters 
I am under a statutory duty to pursuant to regulation 12(1) to record any conduct matters that I become aware of. A “conduct matter” is a matter defined by section 31(1)(b) of the 2011 Act as “matters in the case of which there is an indication (whether from the circumstances or otherwise) that a relevant office holder may have committed a criminal offence”. 
 
I emphasise it is not my role under the 2012 Regulations to investigate or determine whether any offence has been committed. Similarly I do not investigate the veracity of the allegations or whether they are substantiated to any particular evidential level or degree. I am simply required to satisfy myself as to whether there is disclosed the potential presence of an offence during the Relevant Period, to the point of there now being present an indication that such an offence may have been committed from the circumstances or otherwise.   
 
Determination 
I have come to the conclusion that the necessary threshold for there to be a conduct matter is met for the following reasons: 
 
a.    At the material time of the alleged conduct, you were in public office. The alleged conduct is directly linked to the circumstances in which you discharged your public duties.   
 
b.    On the basis of information in the public domain, it is alleged that you have on more than one occasion used your position as Mayor to benefit and reward your friend or her companies with sponsorship monies and access to Trade Missions that she would but for your friendship or intervention not have received.  
 
c.    Subject to any explanation provided by you, these matters give rise to a suggestion that there has been a failure to safeguard the public purse and if so that amounts to a significant breach of public trust. 
  
These are the ingredients of the offence of misconduct in a public office.  
 
Given there is an indication you may have committed misconduct in public office in the Relevant Period and between the Relevant Dates: 

  • I have formally concluded that there is a conduct matter for the purposes of regulation 12(1); and  
  • I have, accordingly, recorded this as required by that regulation.  

Referral to IOPC 
As a result I am now required by regulation 13(2) to refer this conduct matter to Mr Michael Lockwood, the Director-General of the IOPC (“the Director-General”). He is required under regulation 14(1) to determine whether or not it is necessary for the matter to be investigated. I have copied this letter to him. I have done this today. 
 
Evidence 
I draw your attention to your obligations under regulation 6 to provide the Director-General with assistance and to take all such steps as appear appropriate for the purposes of obtaining and preserving evidence relating to the conduct matter under regulation 8. You are also required by that regulation to comply with any directions for that purpose from me, as the GLA’s Monitoring Officer, or from the Director-General.


Yours sincerely, 
 
Monitoring Officer 
Greater London Authority 

Share this page