[17] In a related libel action Ann Clwyd MP, then shadow minister for overseas development, issued a public apology to Geidt and de Normann and agreed to meet all legal costs.

[28] After ten years as Private Secretary, Geidt stepped down in October 2017 and was succeeded by Sir Edward Young.

[29] He was subsequently created Baron Geidt, of Crobeg in the County of Ross and Cromarty, and sits as a Crossbench peer in the House of Lords.

In November 2021, academic staff at King’s College London wrote publicly complaining that Geidt had failed to disclose and manage conflicts of interest, breaching university policy.

Geidt's predecessor Sir Alex Allan resigned when his findings into alleged bullying of civil servants by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, in November 2020, were overruled by Boris Johnson.

[40] Nick Cohen commented in The Guardian that "Lord Geidt, Johnson's ministerial standards adviser, now cuts a pathetic figure.

The credulous man actually believed the prime minister when he said he knew nothing about a businessman buddy, Lord Brownlow, paying for the refurbishment of his Downing Street flat until the media mentioned it in February 2021.

"[41] On 12 January 2022, in the House of Commons, MP Chris Bryant described Lord Geidt's reputation as "tarnished" by his involvement with Johnson.

[42] In his annual report of May 2022, Geidt said that he had avoided offering unprompted advice to Boris Johnson about the latter's obligations under his own ministerial code because if it had been rejected, he would have had to resign.

[43] On 14 June 2022, Geidt appeared at a Parliamentary committee, and was widely criticised, including as the "ultimate establishment stooge... who passes for Boris Johnson’s moral guardian.

[45][46] The Scotsman said the reason for his resignation was that he was "tasked to offer a view about the Government's intention to consider measures which risk a deliberate and purposeful breach of the Ministerial Code".

Geidt stated the steel tariffs issue was “simply one example of what might yet constitute deliberate breaches by the United Kingdom of its obligations under international law, given the government’s widely publicised openness to this”.