header-logo header-logo

COVID-19: Public inquiry ‘inevitable’

20 May 2020
Issue: 7887 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Public
printer mail-detail
A growing number of lawyers are calling for a public inquiry into the government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic

Elkan Abrahamson, director at Liverpool firm Broudie Jackson Canter, said a public inquiry was ‘inevitable and essential’.

‘I accept that having a full inquiry now would involve experts whose time might be better spent advising the government. Yet any post-COVID inquiry will come too late to prevent the deaths that must surely result from the government’s latest decision to relax movement restrictions. 

‘So, we should start an inquiry immediately with the initial purpose of simply gathering and sharing evidence―hearings can come later.’

Former head of the Home Civil Service Sir Bob Kerslake and the Trades Union Congress have also urged a public inquiry. Nick Griffin QC, of QEB Hollis Whiteman, suggested in this week’s Law  Society Gazette that there was ‘a solid basis for triggering an inquiry’.

Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Kemp, public law partner, Kingsley Napley, says the government could find itself compelled to hold an inquiry under Art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which imposes ‘a positive obligation to take appropriate measures to safeguard life’. Article 2 includes an ‘investigative duty’, which ‘is engaged where “systemic” issues are suspected to have contributed to a person’s death’, she says.

Kemp sets out areas likely to form part of the terms of reference of any future inquiry. These are: early decision making and planning; the policy and guidance on discharging hospital patients to care homes; and PPE (personal protective equipment) supply, resourcing and guidance that ran contrary to many doctors’ concerns.

She also highlights key policy decisions that were out of step with World Health Organisation (WHO) guidance, and which participants in a future inquiry may argue were inconsistent with the government’s obligation to take practical steps to reduce the risk of death. They include the 12 March decision to end testing and contact tracing when moving from the ‘contain’ phase to ‘delay phase’ of the government response, ‘the apparent decision to adopt a “herd immunity” strategy during the ‘delay phase’; and whether lockdown was introduced too late.

Issue: 7887 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Public
printer mail-details
RELATED ARTICLES

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll