Johnson backs Covid inquiry chairwoman in authorized conflict with Government
F
ormer prime minister Boris Johnson has backed the UK Covid Inquiry in its High Court conflict with the Government over his unredacted WhatsApp messages, diaries and notebooks.
The Cabinet Office is bringing a judicial evaluate of inquiry chairwoman Baroness Heather Hallett’s order to launch the paperwork, arguing it mustn’t have handy over materials which is “unambiguously irrelevant”.
Lawyers for the division argue the inquiry doesn’t have the authorized energy to pressure ministers to launch paperwork and messages it says cowl issues “unconnected to the Government’s handling of Covid”.
At a listening to in London on Friday, Sir James Eadie KC, representing the division, mentioned the problem was “brought with some considerable reluctance”, however Lady Hallett’s demand was “so broad” it was “bound to catch” a considerable amount of irrelevant materials.
In establishing the inquiry, Mr Johnson mentioned… he wished the state’s motion to be positioned ‘underneath the microscope’ and that the inquiry should be ‘free to scrutinise each doc’
Lady Hallett contends the Cabinet Office’s place “undermines” her potential to hold out the inquiry correctly and would have “serious implications” for all public inquiries.
In written arguments put earlier than the court docket on Mr Johnson’s behalf, his legal professionals mentioned he has “no objection” to the inquiry having the unredacted materials, topic to “appropriate security and confidentiality arrangements” being in place – which he has been assured of by the inquiry.
Mr Johnson, who’s an social gathering within the case, alongside together with his former adviser Henry Cook, is asking the court docket to reject the Government’s problem.
Lord David Pannick KC, representing the previous prime minister, mentioned: “Mr Johnson considers that it is appropriate that the chair has all documents that she reasonably considers are potentially relevant to her ongoing investigation, and that that is consistent with the objectives of the inquiry, which Mr Johnson announced in May 2021.”
He mentioned Mr Johnson “adopts” a part of the authorized submissions put ahead by Lady Hallett to the High Court, including: “First, not only does the defendant’s interpretation promote the purpose of the legislation and the inquisitorial nature of public inquiries, it is also consistent with the objectives of this inquiry.
“In establishing the inquiry, Mr Johnson said in terms he wanted the state’s action to be placed ‘under the microscope’ and that the inquiry must be ‘free to scrutinise every document’.
“That is what the public expects and that is what should be done.”
Lord Pannick mentioned the inquiry “should not be impeded in this process by technical debates as to perceived ‘relevance’.
He added: “For the inquiry to carry out its objectives, and for the public to have confidence that it is doing so, it must be for the chair, and not for the Cabinet Office, to decide what material is potentially relevant.”
The Government took the extremely uncommon step of launching the problem earlier in June and the transfer attracted criticism after days of public wrangling between the Cabinet Office and Lady Hallett’s probe after she rejected its argument the fabric was not related in a May ruling.
Sir James mentioned in written arguments that the powers conferred on inquiries by the Inquiries Act 2005 don’t prolong to the compulsion of fabric that’s irrelevant to the work of an inquiry, and that notices for proof “must be limited by reference to relevance”.
The row with the inquiry centres round Mr Johnson’s WhatsApp messages, diaries and private notebooks, which the previous prime minister handed over in late May to the Cabinet Office in unredacted type.
Court paperwork filed on June 1 revealed the WhatsApp messages handed to officers are solely from May 2021 onwards due to a safety breach involving an outdated cell phone belonging to Mr Johnson.
The former prime minister wrote to the inquiry after the Cabinet Office launched the judicial evaluate, saying he was “more than happy” handy over his unredacted WhatsApp messages and notebooks on to the inquiry.
The listening to, earlier than Lord Justice Dingemans and Mr Justice Garnham, is because of conclude on Friday and the judges are anticipated to provide their ruling at a later date.