The government’s argument centred on its view that Dame Hallett sought documents that were not relevant to the inquiry, and moreover that this would set a precedent that could inhibit ministers and officials in future. Dame Hallett, on the other hand, believed she should decide what was or was not relevant.
Lord Justice Dingemans and Mr Justice Garnham granted Cabinet Office permission to apply for judicial review because the claim raised issues about the interpretation of the Inquiries Act 2005, s 21 notice requiring disclosure. Ruling in R (Cabinet Office) v Chair of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry & Ors [2023] EWHC 1702 (Admin) last week, however, the court dismissed the claim.
Dingemans LJ and Garnham J found Dame Hallett was not acting irrationally in seeking disclosure because she was ‘entitled to take the view that the documents requested related to a matter in question at the inquiry’.
On the ultra vires point, they said: ‘In our judgment the fact that the s 21 notice will yield some irrelevant documents does not invalidate the notice… inquiries are to be given a latitude, not provided to parties in civil proceedings, to enable them to “fish” for documents, meaning to make informed but speculative requests for documents relevant to lines of inquiry, or documents which lead to new lines of inquiry. Such an exercise is bound to lead to the inclusion of some irrelevant material.'
Carl Gardner, professional support lawyer at LexisNexis, said the government’s argument was ‘an ambitious submission that, had it succeeded, would have limited the power of public inquiries considerably. In accordance with this judgment, it's for the Inquiry Chair to rule on the relevance of any document.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=43229066_1)
