Former prime minister Boris Johnson has backed the UK Covid Inquiry in its High Court clash with the Government over his unredacted WhatsApp messages, diaries and notebooks.
The Cabinet Office is bringing a judicial review of inquiry chairwoman Baroness Heather Hallett’s order to release the documents, arguing it should not have to hand over material which is “unambiguously irrelevant”.
Lawyers for the department argue the 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”.
At a hearing in London on Friday, Sir James Eadie KC, representing the department, said the challenge was “brought with some considerable reluctance”, but Lady Hallett’s demand was “so broad” it was “bound to catch” a large amount of irrelevant material.
In establishing the inquiry, Mr Johnson said... he wanted the state’s action to be placed 'under the microscope' and that the inquiry must be 'free to scrutinise every document'— Lord Pannick KC, for Boris Johnson
Lady Hallett contends the Cabinet Office’s position “undermines” her ability to carry out the inquiry properly and would have “serious implications” for all public inquiries.
In written arguments put before the court on Mr Johnson’s behalf, his lawyers said he has “no objection” to the inquiry having the unredacted material, subject to “appropriate security and confidentiality arrangements” being in place – which he has been assured of by the inquiry.
Mr Johnson, who is an interested party in the case, along with his former adviser Henry Cook, is asking the court to reject the Government’s challenge.
Lord David Pannick KC, representing the former prime minister, said: “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 said Mr Johnson “adopts” part of the legal submissions put forward by Lady Hallett to the High Court, adding: “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 said 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 highly unusual step of launching the challenge earlier in June and the move attracted criticism after days of public wrangling between the Cabinet Office and Lady Hallett’s probe after she rejected its argument the material was not relevant in a May ruling.
Sir James said in written arguments that the powers conferred on inquiries by the Inquiries Act 2005 do not extend to the compulsion of material that is irrelevant to the work of an inquiry, and that notices for evidence “must be limited by reference to relevance”.
The row with the inquiry centres around Mr Johnson’s WhatsApp messages, diaries and personal notebooks, which the former prime minister handed over in late May to the Cabinet Office in unredacted form.
Court documents filed on June 1 revealed the WhatsApp messages passed to officials are only from May 2021 onwards because of a security breach involving an old mobile phone belonging to Mr Johnson.
The former prime minister wrote to the inquiry after the Cabinet Office launched the judicial review, saying he was “more than happy” to hand over his unredacted WhatsApp messages and notebooks directly to the inquiry.
The hearing, before Lord Justice Dingemans and Mr Justice Garnham, is due to conclude on Friday and the judges are expected to give their ruling at a later date.
