I don't want Boris to become Tory leader or prime minister, and I certainly don't want to see a damaging no-deal Brexit. But it is hard not to come to the conclusion that this private prosecution is a stunt which shouldn't be allowed to go much further. I think that most remainers have spent the last 3+ years decrying Boris and others' claims about the benefits of Brexit and I'd be surprised if they actually swayed anyone. It's fairly de rigeur for politicians to make trumped-up inflated claims in support of their case at polling time. The claims were in any event called out at the time - even disowned by his own colleagues in government I believe. The problem with this kind of thing is that if the law is allowed to be used for this purpose we risk descending into an American-style environment where each side is legally challenged and hampered by their opponents and nothing gets done because the victors are perpetually hampered. Admittedly, in the case of Trump there's a part of me that celebrates any challenge to him - valid or not. But I was less amused when Obama's reforms repeatedly had hurdles placed in front of them. In this case, was Boris "in public office" for the purposes of the decision being polled, or simply one of the protagonists? And was the behaviour cited 'misconduct', or a mere puff designed to aid the cause of the leave campaign? I think it's going to be difficult to convict him beyond reasonable doubt. The last time I looked at this area, I recall that the Director Of Public Prosecutions retained a power to take over private prosecutions and, if he/she saw fit, discontinue them. If that is still the case then I wouldn't be surprised if the DPP so acts in this case. By all means challenge Boris (and all leavers) but I'm not convinced this is the way to go.