Sunak government loses court battle to keep Boris’ Covid WhatsApps secret
‘Humiliating defeat’ for government, as High Court rules in favour of Covid inquiry chair
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Rishi Sunak’s government has been ordered to hand over Boris Johnson’s unredacted WhatsApp messages, notebooks and diaries to the Covid inquiry in a “humiliating” court defeat.
The Cabinet Office launched legal action over inquiry chair Baroness Hallett’s order to release the former PM’s documents – arguing that the government should not have to hand over “unambiguously irrelevant” material.
But in a major ruling on Thursday, the High Court dismissed the government’s claim for a judicial review. Judges said Baroness Hallett had “acted rationally” when asking for Mr Johnson’s messages and concluded that they were “very likely” to relate to key Covid decisions.
Lady Hallett’s team immediately issued the Cabinet Office a new deadline of 4pm on Monday for the handover of the material, with the government promising to comply with the court verdict.
Opposition parties said it amounted to a “humiliating defeat” for the government, and accused Mr Sunak of wasting taxpayers’ money in a doomed bid to “dodge scrutiny”.
Deborah Doyle, spokes for Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK, described it as “a desperate waste of time and money”. She said the inquiry must now be able to access “all of the evidence – not just what the Cabinet Office wants it to see”.
Government lawyers had claimed the Covid inquiry does not have the legal power to force ministers to release documents and messages it says cover matters “unconnected to the government’s handling of Covid”.
But Hugo Keith KC, lawyer for the inquiry, successfully argued that allowing the Cabinet Office to decide whether material was relevant or irrelevant would “emasculate” future public inquiries.
High Court judges Lord Justice Dingemans and Mr Justice Garnham said: “The diaries and notebooks sought were very likely to contain information about decision making relating to the Covid-19 pandemic and therefore ‘relate to a matter in question at the inquiry’.”
The government took the highly controversial step of taking a public inquiry to court in June, a move which attracted criticism after several days of wrangling between the Cabinet Office, Lady Hallett’s probe and Mr Johnson’s office.
The former prime minister had handed over his unredacted WhatsApp messages, diaries and 24 notebooks to the Cabinet Office back in late May. And in a surprise twist last month, Mr Johnson himself backed Lady Hallett and her demand for uncensored information.
The former PM’s lawyer David Pannick KC argued there was a “real danger” of undermining public confidence in the whole Covid inquiry process if the department won the legal battle.
In small comfort for the government, the High Court judges also said the Covid inquiry chair should have to return any documents she finds to be “obviously irrelevant”.
They stated: “To answer the practical issue which seems to have divided the Cabinet Office and the chair of the inquiry, the chair of the inquiry may examine the contested documents, and if the chair of the inquiry agrees that they are obviously irrelevant, will return them.”
Following the ruling, a Sunak government spokesperson said the Cabinet Office “will comply fully with this judgment and will now work with the inquiry team on the practical arrangements”.
The government said it welcomed the emphasis on Lady Hallett handing back anything found to be irrelevant. The spokesperson said the judgement was “a sensible resolution” that “will mean that the inquiry chair is able to see the information she may deem relevant”.
They added that “we can work together to have an arrangement that respects the privacy of individuals and ensures completely irrelevant information is returned and not retained”.
A spokesperson said Baroness Hallett was “pleased” at the court ruling. “Following the court’s judgment, the inquiry has varied its order to require the disclosure of materials by 4pm on Monday July 10.”
Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, said Mr Sunak “has been wasting time and taxpayers’ money on doomed legal battles to withhold evidence from the Covid inquiry”.
She added: “After this latest humiliating defeat, the prime minister must accept the ruling and comply with the inquiry’s requests for evidence in full. It’s time to hand over the evidence.”
Christine Jardine MP, Lib Dem Cabinet Office spokesperson, also said it was “a humiliating defeat” for the government, adding that Mr Sunak “should have never wasted taxpayers’ money trying to dodge scrutiny and hide the truth”.
Elkan Abrahamson, a lawyer at Broudie Jackson Canter who represents the Covid-19 Bereaved Families For Justice UK group, said it was “the correct decision to ensure the inquiry maintains its authority and allows it to get to the truth”.
He added: “We hope the government will accept the decision and, as they keep urging us to do after their breaches of Covid rules, ‘move on’. We would also urge the inquiry to be as transparent with us as they want the Cabinet Office to be with them – something they have failed to do since the inquiry started.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments