A former Conservative cabinet minister embroiled in a lobbying row has asked Sir Keir Starmer to let him have his day in court.
Three years after quitting politics, Owen Paterson has broken his silence after a parliamentary standards committee recommended he be given a 30-day suspension.
The panel of MPs concluded in November 2021 that Mr Paterson had repeatedly lobbied on behalf of clinical diagnostics company Randox and food manufacturer Lynn’s Country Foods.
Then-prime minister Boris Johnson tried to delay Mr Paterson’s sacking by setting up a new committee with its own appeals process, but a rebellion by Tory supporters put him in a difficult position.
Mr Paterson has now written to the Prime Minister asking for permission to challenge the committee’s findings, which are protected by parliamentary privilege, in court.
In his letter to Sir Keir, he claimed there was “no shred of evidence” against him and that 17 supporting witnesses could prove his innocence “beyond doubt”.
Mr Paterson wrote: “No objection to the committee’s findings was, and remains, possible. These are protected by parliamentary privilege.
“My life has been turned upside down by a process in which natural justice has been completely excluded. I was denied the right to produce or challenge evidence, and my representatives were prevented from speaking on my behalf.
“I am writing to request that you use your offices to waive parliamentary privilege in this matter, thereby allowing me to take my case to the courts and subject the allegations against me to a judicial process that we both respect.”
Kathryn Stone, the parliamentary standards commissioner at the time of Mr Paterson’s trial, found the former environment minister had “repeatedly used his position as an MP to support companies that pay him”.
Ms. Stone’s supporters strongly opposed any suggestion of wrongdoing in the case at the time.
The standards committee’s final report said: “Mr Paterson’s lobbying breaches were so serious and so numerous that they risked undermining public confidence in the House and its members.”
Mr Paterson’s appeal to Sir Keir comes ahead of the release this week of a new documentary called Justice? The Owen Paterson Story.
In the half-hour film, Mr Paterson claimed the standards committee was “out to get me” and suggested the panel targeted him because he was a “huge Brexiteer”.
“I just want to spend my day in court, that’s all I want,” he said.
“If I go downstairs later, at least I will be convinced that justice has been served. But I don’t want any other person to go through what I and my family went through.”
Mr Paterson has previously argued the investigation into his behavior “undoubtedly played a major role” in his wife Rose’s suicide in 2020.
He also denied claims he helped Randox secure a Covid contract worth £133 million.
Mr Paterson’s lawyer, Philip Barden, said Mr Paterson was right to warn the Food Safety Agency that milk and ham were contaminated with banned substances that could cause cancer.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith, who was cleared by the committee more than two decades ago, said in the documentary: “Of course I may be criticized for saying that, but I don’t think it was as clear or as stark as it was at the time.”
Mr Paterson will also be seen defending him from Rory Stewart, whom he met during his time as a minister to explain how medical equipment used to save lives in the third world was not working properly.
“I don’t believe what he did counts as lobbying. He declared himself a consultant, clearly working for a company that did blood testing,” Mr Stewart said.
“I didn’t feel like he was doing anything different from what I’ve always seen MPs do, and I thought the entire meeting was conducted within the appropriate rules with civil servants present.
“We followed the correct process and I am very sorry that his name was tarnished in this way.”
Parliamentary sources said there was no power to waive Article 9 of the Bill of Rights and noted that the standards committee had a Conservative majority at the time of the investigation into Mr Paterson.
They added that the European Court of Human Rights had thrown out Mr Paterson’s case.
The Standards Committee and the Office of the Standards Commissioner were contacted for comment.