here's a “real danger” the UK Covid Inquiry could be undermined if the Cabinet Office wins its High Court bid, legal professionals for former prime minister Boris Johnson have mentioned in a dispute over his unredacted WhatsApp messages, diaries and notebooks.

The Cabinet Office is bringing a judicial evaluation of inquiry chairwoman Baroness Heather Hallett’s order to launch the paperwork, arguing it mustn't have at hand over materials that's “unambiguously irrelevant”.

Lawyers for the division argue the inquiry doesn't have the authorized energy to power ministers to launch paperwork and messages it says cowl issues “unconnected to the Government’s handling of Covid”.

Mr Johnson himself is backing Baroness Hallett in opposing the authorized problem over the request, which incorporates unredacted WhatsApp messages between him and round 40 named people concerned within the central Government response to the pandemic between January 2020 and February 2022.

At a listening to in London on Friday, Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Cabinet Office, 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.

Read More

He added in written submissions: “Compelling the provision of every WhatsApp over a two-year period, without any subject matter qualification, is absurd.”

However, Lord David Pannick KC mentioned on behalf of the previous prime minister: “Unless the inquiry can see the material, it cannot form its own judgment.”

The barrister continued: “The issue of principle is not whether the inquiry may insist on seeing irrelevant material.

If Sir James were to be correct, there is a real danger that the functions of the inquiry would be undermined, that public confidence would be undermined

“The issue, I say, is whether the inquiry may require production of material that the Cabinet Office regards as irrelevant but which the chair wishes to see so that she can form her own judgment on whether that material ‘may cast light on matters that fall within the terms of reference’.”

Lord Pannick added there might be wider implications if the Cabinet Office – and different our bodies – had been allowed to resolve themselves what paperwork could also be related to the inquiry.

He continued: “If Sir James were to be correct, there is a real danger that the functions of the inquiry would be undermined, that public confidence would be undermined.”

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.

Lady Hallett additionally contends the Cabinet Office’s place “undermines” her capacity to hold out the inquiry correctly and would have “serious implications” for all public inquiries.

Hugo Keith KC, for the inquiry’s chair, informed the court docket: “The reality is the inquiry cannot issue any notice confident that every single part of it, every single document or part of a document will turn out to be relevant.”

He added: “There simply could not have been a notice sensibly drawn up that could refer to individual messages.”

Mr Keith later added that the concept that the Cabinet Office might resolve which elements had been related “would emasculate this and future inquiries”.

In written submissions, he mentioned the result of the case could be prone to affect the way in which comparable powers for manufacturing of paperwork had been performed in different contexts, such because the work of coroners.

The barrister later mentioned probably the most Lady Hallett might say about paperwork she has not seen is that they could be “potentially relevant”.

Mr Keith continued: “A broad strategy to proof gathering is crucial as a result of an unduly slender strategy dangers lacking key paperwork and subsequently undermining the aim of the inquiry.

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.

The former prime minister handed over his unredacted WhatsApp messages, diaries and 24 notebooks to the Cabinet Office in late May.

The listening to, earlier than Lord Justice Dingemans and Mr Justice Garnham, concluded on Friday and the judges will give their determination in writing at a later date.