Boris Johnson today won a High Court challenge against a court summons over claims he made during the referendum campaign that the EU receives £350million a week from the UK.

The former Foreign Secretary's legal team challenged the summons for him to attend Westminster Magistrates' Court as they blocked a controversial private prosecution by campaigner Marcus Ball.

Mr Ball, a Remainer, had been trying to prosecute the Conservative leadership for three allegations of misconduct in a public office. But he will now not face court after two High Court judges took barely five minutes to quash the case.

Boris Johnson is pictured leaving his girlfriend Carrie Symonds's home in London today

His lawyers said District Judge Margot Coleman 'erred in law' by issuing the summons and argued the attempt to prosecute him was the culmination of a 'politically-driven process'.

It is an important victory for Mr Johnson as his bid to be the next Prime Minister gathers pace.

Theresa May formally steps down as leader of the Conservative party today, and Mr Johnson warned that the next leader of the country must deliver Brexit or risk losing a general election.

He spoke the morning after the Brexit Party narrowly lost the Peterborough by-election to Labour, and Nigel Farage vowed to split the Conservative vote by contesting a general election if Brexit is not delivered by October 31.

Farage contesting a general election would likely make Jeremy Corbyn's path to Number 10 easier, by handing Tory seats to Labour in constituencies where a significant vote share would be gobbled up by the Brexit Party.

Speaking outside the court today, Mr Ball said: 'We have just given the green light for every politician to lie to us about our money forever. That is a terrifying idea.'

Campaigner Marcus Ball speaks to reporters outside the High Court in London this morning

Asked about funds raised to bring the private prosecution, he added: 'I've already spent more money than I've raised. I've put myself in massive debt to do this.'

Home Secretary Sajid Javid tweeted: 'Very glad to see the court case against Boris Johnson thrown out. Freedom of speech feels increasingly challenged - we should always seek to debate political arguments in the open rather than close them down.'

The die-hard Remainer who films Instagram videos in his bedroom and crowd-funded over £200k to spend three years targeting Boris Marcus Ball, 29 The man who targeted Boris Johnson is a die-hard Remainer who has spent the three years since the Brexit referendum working on his case against the Leave figurehead. Marcus Ball, 29, has relied on crowdfunded donations of more than £200,000 to employ a team of lawyers to fight on his behalf - boasting that the case was a 'world first'. However, it emerged Mr Ball spent nearly £50,000 of the donations on himself, on self-defence classes, a luxury flat and branded cupcakes. The start-up company entrepreneur from Norfolk, who worked developing mobile app including a political Tamagotchi, founded Brexit Justice in June 2016. He has also previously worked as a speaker and writer as well as campaigning to reform higher education in the UK. He is a well-known Instagrammer who often films himself discussing the case in the bedroom of his west London flat, which has signs on the wall including: 'When politicians lie, democracy dies' and 'Brexit justice'. Describing his motivations he said: 'I was just like, 'F*** this. This has to stop'. This is a primitive problem, which has been around for thousands of years. It's not impossible to stop it.' It followed the 2016 referendum campaign in which Mr Ball says Mr Johnson abused the public's trust. He has since built a case against Mr Johnson for the last two years. Initially the campaign wanted to bring prosecutions against six 'remain and leave campaigners' but decided to pursue only Mr Johnson after reviewing the evidence. The others have not been identified. A source close to Mr Johnson accused Mr Ball of being politically motivated, saying: 'He has written internet blogs, which have since been removed, disclosing his intention to stop Brexit and reverse the referendum via a court case. 'He is deeply dishonest about his intention - which is to frustrate the largest ever popular vote in British history.' Advertisement

And Brexiteer Conservative MP Bob Seely, responding to a tweet about the case being quashed, said: 'Good! That it made this far was ridiculous!'

The High Court was due to have broken at 1pm today, but Lady Justice Rafferty instead told the assembled lawyers and journalists: 'Don't go.'

Giving the court's decision, sitting with Mr Justice Supperstone, she said: 'We are persuaded, Mr Darbishire, so you succeed, and the relief that we grant is the quashing of the summonses.'

Speaking outside court, Mr Ball said: 'We have to wait and see the reasons for their (the judges') decision. When we have those reasons I'm going to make a decision as to what to do next.'

Asked if he had a message for Mr Johnson, Mr Ball said: 'You don't have the right to lie to the public about how their money is being spent.'

He added: 'I would ask you, please, all members of Parliament, all elected representatives, understand: you cannot lie to the public about their money.'

Mr Ball continued: 'I care about solving the problem. It seems melodramatic, but I'm willing to sacrifice myself because I care about solving the problem.'

Later on in a tweet, Mr Ball said: 'This is not over. Awaiting written reasons from the court before we decide on next steps. Nothing this important is ever easy or simple. I have a duty to my country to keep fighting lying in politics and I take it bloody seriously.'

Adrian Darbishire QC, for Mr Johnson, had earlier said: 'The only rational conclusion which could be reached (by the district judge) was that the prosecution was politically motivated and, therefore, vexatious.'

Mr Darbishire told the court: 'This case clearly represented on the face of it - I will be neutral - a politically-originated... attempt to prosecute a senior politician using a common law offence for false statements in the course of public debate, a use to which that offence had never been put in this country or any common law jurisdiction.'

He added that the proposed private prosecution concerned 'an area of public life that has never previously been subject to the attentions of the criminal law'.

Mr Darbishire said the alleged offences relate to Mr Johnson's 'adoption and promotion of one of the central slogans' of the Vote Leave campaign.

He said: 'The claim is 'We send £350 million a week to the EU' - the interested party (Mr Ball) says that was misleading, essentially and simply because it was the gross figure when a net figure was called for. That is what it comes down to.'

'It is suggested that Mr Johnson, and presumably Mr Gove, Mr Duncan Smith and anyone else who used that message, was misleading the voters.'

Former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson is pictured in May 2016 standing in front of a bus saying Britain gave £350 million a week to the European Union

Mr Darbishire submitted that the alleged offence did not constitute misconduct in public office, saying: 'Standing on the hustings is not the exercise of state power, and doing something naughty on the hustings is not capable of being an abuse of state power.'

How do private prosecutions work and when can they become criminal cases? The Crown Prosecution Service says that a private prosecution is started by an individual, in this case Marcus Ball, or entity (Brexit Justice), which is not acting on behalf of the police or another authority – in this case they are acting for members of the public. The right to bring about a private prosecution is preserved by section 6 (1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act (POA), 1985. Limitations include that the private prosecutor must seek the consent of an Attorney General before proceedings. There is no law against a private prosecution running its course through verdict to sentencing. Even if the prosecution succeeds, it doesn't always mean that the case should have been prosecuted by the CPS. There will be instances where it is appropriate for the CPS to exercise the Director's powers under section 6(2) POA 1985, either to continue the prosecution or to discontinue or stop it. When asked to do so, the CPS must make a decision on whether or not to take on a private prosecution. The cases can often fail if police don't want to investigate or it the CPS is unwilling to press ahead to trial. Cases can also be stopped if they interfere with other criminal cases, or if they are considered not in the public interest. Advertisement

Mr Darbishire told the court: 'It has never been the practice of the state in this country, or any other common law democracy so far as can be discovered, to engage in, or to permit, the criminal prosecution of political opponents for the expression of views, or the presentation of political arguments, in a manner which is considered to be objectionable, misleading or even plain wrong.

'No prosecution for misconduct in public office, or for any other offence, has ever come close to doing so.'

The judges were urged to quash the decision of District Judge Coleman and declare that the application for summonses 'did not disclose all elements of the offence of misconduct in public office and are vexatious'.

Mr Darbishire told the court that the making of false statements 'must be as old as political campaigning itself' and that Mr Johnson's use of the £350 million figure could not be characterised as misconduct.

He said: 'Misconduct in public office cases are about secret abuse, corruption, concealing your pecuniary interests. This was a figure that, as soon as it was said, was disputed.

'It was batted to and fro, the people who promoted it were challenged about it. There was nothing secret about it, no-one was claiming special knowledge about it.'

Mr Darbishire added: 'It was just a political claim open to and available for contradiction and debate, and it was, and is, for the good sense of the electorate to discount it if they choose so to do.

'It is not for the CPS, judge and jury to determine the misconduct of this claim and it is not for the interested party either.'

Mr Darbishire said: 'It must be extremely rare for a private prosecution to be launched for a political purpose.'

The barrister added that 'to try to use for political purposes the criminal justice system is an extremely grave and troubling thing to do if that is the motive of a prosecution'.

The hearing today was before Lady Justice Rafferty (left) and Mr Justice Supperstone (right)

In written submissions before the court, Mr Darbishire states: 'For the avoidance of doubt, it is denied by the claimant that he acted in any way improperly or dishonestly. Public debate about the accuracy or otherwise of the £350million continues to this day.'

Mr Johnson's QC tells the two judges in his written argument: 'In drawing upon freely-available public statistics for the purpose of a political argument, Vote Leave, and those who supported and spoke for that campaign, were clearly not acting as public officials, nor exercising any public power.

Who is District Judge Margot Coleman and what are her previous cases? District Judge Margot Coleman is more used to dealing with small-time criminals and foreign nationals fighting extradition to be tried for crimes abroad. The 64-year old from Edgeware, north London, became a qualified solicitor in 1978 and went on to set up her own law firm, Coleman Solicitors, which became Victor Lissack Roscoe & Coleman in 2003. She was appointed a deputy district judge in 2000 and five years later in February 2005 became a district judge, which currently comes with a £110,335 salary. In this role she joined her husband, Jeremy Coleman, who served as a district judge for 21 years before retiring in 2016. District judges - previously known as Stipendiary Magistrates - sit in magistrates courts. They preside over low level crime cases where the maximum penalties are fines or short prison sentences. They also oversee initial hearings in high-level crime cases, before handing them on to more senior Crown Courts, which have the power to hand down heavier sentences. In one case she gave a suspended sentence to a 23-year-old trainee doctor who lost his temper with police when they pulled him while driving, saying she felt sympathy for him. Ramtin Oraki's mother had allowed him to drive the car in 2016 as she had been suffering from a bad back. Judge Coleman sentenced them both to conditional discharges of two years . Other high profile cases include that of alleged paedophile Roger Giese, who in 2015 Judge Coleman refused to extradite. He had been on the run from the FBI since 2007 and Judge Coleman refused to start the extradition process until assurance were received that his human rights would not be breached. In 2018 he was extradited to the US, where he was wanted for trial in California – charged with sexually abusing a boy aged under 14. Advertisement

'They made no claim to special knowledge of the sums expended by the UK, they exercised no official power in promoting that message and the assessment and publication of the level of the UK's total EU spending formed no part of Mr Johnson's official duties.'

He says: 'It is abundantly clear that this prosecution is motivated by a political objective and has been throughout.'

Mr Johnson did not have to appear and did not attend the hearing.

Jason Coppel QC, representing Mr Ball, told the court: 'The right of a citizen to institute a private prosecution in this country is an ancient and significant constitutional right.'

He added: 'It provides an important means whereby an individual can seek to right what he perceives to be a wrong through the court process.

'More specifically, the right enables an individual to take action to bring an alleged criminal to justice where, for whatever reason, the public prosecution authorities have not taken action against him.'

Mr Coppel said in written submissions: 'The district judge was entitled to conclude, on the information and evidence before her, that the low threshold for issue of a summons had been surmounted and that the various objections raised by the claimant were properly matters for evidence and ruling at a trial.

'No public law error in her decision has been demonstrated, or even alleged, by the claimant.

'Similarly, it was open to the judge to conclude, and she was right to conclude, that she should not take the exceptional course of refusing to issue the summons on grounds that the prosecution is vexatious.'

Mr Coppel added: 'The prosecution raises an issue of significant public and political interest, interest which has been heightened by recent political events - including the candidacy of the claimant for leadership of the Conservative Party.

'But that does not establish that the motivation of the interested parties as prosecutors is improper, whether because it is a purely political motivation or otherwise.

'The entirely proper motivation for the prosecution is to hold to account a high-profile politician and holder of public office for what is alleged to be significant misconduct in relation to an issue of great public importance.'

Mr Coppel told the court that it was alleged that 'these statements were false and he (Mr Johnson) knew them to be false, that's the misconduct that is alleged against him'.

In a tweet, Mr Ball said today: 'This is not over. Awaiting written reasons from the court before we decide on next steps. Nothing this important is ever easy or simple'

Referring to the £350million figure, Mr Coppel added: 'There is ample evidence that he did know it was a false and misleading figure.'

Mr Coppel said Mr Ball's motivation for bringing the private prosecution was 'first and foremost to prosecute elected public office holders who have breached public trust'.

He added: 'This particular offence (misconduct in public office) exists to deter, to penalise, conduct of public officials which destroys public trust in officials. That is exactly what this prosecution is about.'

Mr Ball, 29, had claimed Mr Johnson lied during the 2016 referendum campaign by saying Britain gave £350million a week to the European Union.

The entreprenuer crowdfunded more than £300,000 through an online campaign to bring the prosecution.

Speaking before the hearing today, Mr Ball said: 'I've spent three years of my life working ridiculous hours for, per hour I believe, the minimum wage to bring this case because I believe in the merits of it. Somebody who was doing this to create a stunt would not act like that.'

The £350million figure was emblazoned on the red campaign bus used by Vote Leave during the referendum campaign, with the slogan saying 'We send the EU £350 million a week, let's fund our NHS instead'.

A spokesman for Mr Johnson said he would not be commenting on the case.