Jacob Rees-Mogg

The regulator had considered that Rees-Mogg, then a former minister and MP, had acted as a news presenter within the meaning of rules 5.1 and 5.3 in segments concerning major current events. GB News challenged this interpretation. In February 2025, the High Court concluded that Ofcom had made an error of law in its analysis. The decisions were quashed; Ofcom announced that it would not reinvestigate the two programmes and withdrew similar decisions from its register. The favourable outcome is therefore essential: there is no longer a final regulatory finding of a breach in these episodes.

Attribution

Directly implicated

Messages between Matt Hancock and his team indicated that a sample linked to Rees-Mogg's family had been lost and that another sample had to be transported specially. The episode prompted accusations of preferential treatment at a time when many members of the public and healthcare workers faced major difficulties accessing tests. However, the documents do not demonstrate that Rees-Mogg requested the favour or that any criminal law was breached.

State of the evidence

Documented

The original proposal envisaged that approximately 2,400 pieces of legislation would cease to apply at the end of 2023 unless expressly retained or replaced. Subsequent analysis identified more legislation than expected, while devolved governments, businesses and lawyers criticised the uncertainty created. The Regulatory Policy Committee gave the impact assessment a red rating, finding that effects and costs had not been adequately assessed. The legislation eventually adopted abandoned the general sunset in favour of a specified list of laws to repeal. Rees-Mogg had left government before this final amendment.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

As the minister responsible for Government Efficiency, Rees-Mogg advocated greater office attendance among civil servants after the pandemic and had asked departments to measure occupancy rates. Trade unions interpreted the notes as infantilising surveillance and a challenge to hybrid working arrangements. Rees-Mogg defended physical presence as important for public service delivery, collaboration and the use of taxpayer-funded offices.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Direct responsibility

During the energy crisis following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Rees-Mogg argued that the United Kingdom should make greater use of its domestic resources to improve energy security and reduce imports. He notably said that he wanted to extract 'every cubic inch' of North Sea gas. Climate scientists and NGOs considered this approach incompatible with the pace of emissions reductions required by climate targets. Rees-Mogg maintained that domestic production could coexist with net zero.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Personally implicated

The Truss government maintained that renewed shale gas extraction could strengthen energy security. Rees-Mogg sought to reconsider the seismic threshold and speed up the necessary administrative procedures. The British Geological Survey had highlighted limitations in the ability to predict tremors precisely, while opponents questioned whether local consent could be adequately measured. The Sunak government reinstated the moratorium shortly afterwards. No court found Rees-Mogg guilty of an offence.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

On 28 August 2019, Rees-Mogg travelled to Balmoral with members of the Privy Council to formalise the prorogation requested by the government. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Prime Minister's advice to the Queen was unlawful because it prevented Parliament from exercising its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. The judgment legally concerned the Prime Minister's advice and its effects, not any separate personal wrongdoing by Rees-Mogg. He continued to defend the political decision and later acknowledged supporting the idea of prorogation.

State of the evidence

Documented

His remarks were interpreted as attributing some responsibility to victims for following official 'stay put' instructions. Rees-Mogg said he had meant that, with hindsight, he wished the advice had been different and that he admired the residents' courage. He acknowledged that his wording was offensive and apologised unreservedly.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Personally implicated

The investment was lawful under the sanctions applicable at the time and was made as part of the fund's management decisions. Rees-Mogg continued to receive income from Somerset Capital but stated that he did not make day-to-day investment decisions. Critics argued that a politician calling for tougher sanctions should also examine his indirect economic interests. No sanctions breach or unlawful personal transaction was established.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Personally implicated

The statements sparked considerable controversy over the place of religious beliefs in a politician's positions and over LGBT and reproductive rights. Rees-Mogg clearly presented these positions as his personal beliefs and added that abortion law was the law and that he did not intend to permit unlawful practices outside the existing framework. No legal breach is at issue.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Personally implicated

He explained that the existence of food banks demonstrated the generosity of civil society and that their growth was not necessarily a direct measure of poverty. Charities responded that inadequate incomes and difficulties with the benefits system were significant causes of their use. The controversy concerns his tone and interpretation of social data.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Personally implicated