An independent think tank has won a High Court fight over the Government's appointment of former TalkTalk CEO Dido Harding during the pandemic.
Two judges have ruled that then Health Secretary Matt Hancock did not comply with a public sector equality duty when appointing Conservative peer Baroness Harding and Mike Coupe, a former colleague of hers, to posts in 2020.
Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Swift granted a declaration to the Runnymede Trust on Tuesday after considering arguments at a High Court hearing in December, the PA news agency reports.
READ MORE: Dido Harding - Everything you need to know about the former TalkTalk and Test and Trace boss
Baroness Harding was Salford-headquartered TalkTalk's first CEO before stepping down in 2017.
Campaign group the Good Law Project joined the trust in making complaints - arguing that the Government had not adopted an "open" process when making appointments to posts "critical to the pandemic response" - but their claim was dismissed.
Judges concluded that Mr Hancock had not complied with "the public sector equality duty" in relation to the decisions to appoint Baroness Harding as interim executive chair of the National Institute for Health Protection in August 2020 and Mr Coupe as director of testing for NHS Test and Trace in September 2020.
Lawyers representing the two organisations suggested that people "outside the tight circle" in which senior Conservative politicians and their friends moved were not being given opportunities. They said an unfair policy was being challenged. Ministers disputed the claims made against them.
Jason Coppel QC, who led the two organisations' legal teams, told Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Swift that the challenge was based on equality legislation and public law.
He said the Government had a "policy or practice" of "making appointments to posts critical to the pandemic response" without adopting any, or any sufficient, "fair or open competitive processes".
Mr Coppel said people "less likely to be known or connected to decision-makers" were put at a disadvantage.
He also said the Government was failing to offer "remuneration for high-level full-time roles" and "excluding all candidates who were not already wealthy" or held other posts for which they would continue to be paid.
Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Swift said in a written ruling: "It is the process leading up to the two decisions which has been found by this court to be in breach of the public sector equality duty.
"For those reasons we will grant a declaration to the Runnymede Trust that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care did not comply with the public sector equality duty in relation to the decisions how to appoint Baroness Harding as interim executive chair of the NIHP in August 2020 and Mr Coupe as director of testing for NHSTT in September 2020."
Jo Maugham, director of the Good Law Project, said: "Change doesn't happen, things don't get better for those who are disadvantaged, unless those in power care.
"That means making sure they ask themselves: 'how do I level society up for the disabled and ethnic minorities?' And it means taking the time to find the best people - not the best-connected people - for the job."
A spokesman for Mr Hancock said: "Claims of 'apparent bias' and 'indirect discrimination' have been quashed and thrown out by the High Court.
"What the judgment does make clear is that 'the claim brought by Good Law Project fails in its entirety', therefore highlighting the fact this group continues to waste the court's time.
"The court judgment also states that 'the evidence provides no support... at all' for the allegation that Dido Harding secured senior positions on the basis of 'personal or political connections' in the Government.
"They accept these 'were urgent recruitment processes which needed to find highly specialised, experienced and available candidates within a short space of time'.
"Let's not forget, we were dealing with an unprecedented global pandemic, where time was of the essence in order to protect and save lives."
A Government spokeswoman said: "The judgment is clear that all claims raised by the Good Law Project were dismissed and the ruling itself stated their claim 'fails in its entirety'.
"The court also found that the Good Law Project had no standing to bring any of its grounds of challenge.
"We used the skills and expertise of both the public and private sector to rapidly build a world-leading testing infrastructure, speeding up the delivery of tests and ultimately saving more lives, especially amongst the most vulnerable."
