Boris Johnson’s lawyers said he was “not required by law” to sack Priti Patel after she was accused of bullying staff, the High Court has heard.
In a damning report published last November, then independent standards adviser Sir Alex Allan found the Home Secretary had broken the ministerial code, which included "shouting and swearing" at her staff.
The Prime Minister decided to overrule Sir Alex's advice, leading to the ethics chief's resignation instead. Breaching the rules would normally lead to a minister resigning their post.
The FDA union, which represents senior civil servants, has brought a judicial review of his decision, probing the legal status of the ministerial code.
In written submissions, Sir James Eadie QC, for the Prime Minister, argued the Prime Minister’s decision “was a matter of judgment for him having regard to the nature of the code, his functions under it, and all the circumstances of the case”.
He said the ministerial code “does not create or impose any legal duties on ministers or the Prime Minister” and is “not required by law” and its contents “not regulated by law”.
But lawyers for the union, which represents senior public servants, argue Mr Johnson made a “misdirection of law” when he went against the findings of his adviser on ministerial standards in order to back Ms Patel.
Tom Hickman said: “We say on any fair reading of those words the Prime Minister must have considered that where conduct which otherwise amounts to bullying is inadvertent or that the person is unaware of the distress and upset caused then that is an excuse, a reason why it does not constitute bullying.
"We say that is a misdirection of law.”
Following the publication of his report, Ms Patel issued an “unreserved, fulsome apology” and said there were “no excuses” for what happened.
The FDA’s case, being heard by Lord Justice Lewis and Mrs Justice Steyn at the Royal Courts of Justice, continues.
