The public have a right to know as much as they can about Boris Johnson’s character

A balance always has to be struck between the right to privacy and the public interest. In the case of Boris Johnson and his argument on Thursday night with Carrie Symonds, his partner, there are two aspects to the public interest.

One is the concern about domestic abuse. At what point is it legitimate for a neighbour or passerby to intervene? We cannot fault Mr Johnson and Ms Symonds’s neighbours for knocking on their door or for calling the police on receiving no reply. Another neighbour who heard the disturbance told the BBC that they thought it warranted the police being called.

In a statement, the police said: “Police attended and spoke to all occupants of the address, who were all safe and well. There were no offences or concerns apparent to the officers and there was no cause for police action.”

At this point the question is whether it is right for journalists to report the incident simply because one of the participants is famous. Here, the second aspect of the public interest comes in. The question of the character of one of the candidates to be prime minister is clearly one that matters to all citizens in a democracy.

There is no evidence that Mr Johnson’s conduct was beyond the bounds of acceptability, but unless we know that the question has been raised – and screams, bangs, and shouts of “get off me” and “get out of my flat” cross the threshold for asking the question – no one can sensibly form an opinion as to the answer.

In a democracy, people are entitled to take different views of what is or is not relevant in judging a potential prime minister’s temperament. In our view, the untidy state of the inside of Mr Johnson’s car, which was photographed this week, does not say anything useful about his suitability for high office. That it often has parking fine notices on it, sometimes more than one, may on the other hand say something that the voters ought to know.

Equally, Mr Johnson is entitled to respect for his private and family life, but that he will not say how many children he has fathered is something people are entitled to know if they think it matters – especially after years of politicians of all parties promoting “family values”.

Whatever the opinions of those at the leadership hustings in Birmingham, many more voters across Britain are interested in Mr Johnson’s character. It is unsatisfactory, therefore, that Mr Johnson – and Jeremy Hunt – are being scrutinised only by card-carrying members of the Conservative Party over the next few weeks. At a time when many people feel let down by the state of our democracy, it is frustrating that there are so few public forums in which the candidates are being held to account.

The chance for the public and an independent presenter to put questions to the final two candidates does not come until 9 July, with the ITV debate. But party members should receive their ballot papers between 6 and 8 July, and most voters in postal ballots return their vote straight away.

And so, in lieu of more formal, inclusive opportunities to interrogate the character of this recently publicity-shy candidate, it is inevitable that people should seek every chance to examine the evidence of what kind of person Mr Johnson is.

This is why it is all the more important that the media, including The Independent, should report the facts about each candidate’s record, policies and character. Although Conservative Party members will make the decision, the next prime minister is accountable, through the House of Commons, to all the people.

In the balance between Mr Johnson’s privacy and the public interest, we should err on the side of openness.