header-logo header-logo

The COVID inquiry: what’s relevant?

29 June 2023 / John Gould
Issue: 8031 / Categories: Opinion , Covid-19 , Public
printer mail-detail
128487
Who gets to decide what information the COVID inquiry should see? John Gould suggests that the government, by objecting to handing over material, may have forgotten its proper role in supporting the work of a public inquiry

Nearly as many people have died in the UK from COVID as British military personnel died in the six years of World War II. It is hard to overestimate the importance of establishing the facts of the pandemic, without doubt or spin—not only for the victims, but also so that hindsight may help us when, inevitably, the next pandemic comes.

Few would doubt the wisdom of establishing a public inquiry independent of those who found themselves having to make decisions in the most challenging of circumstances. It was obviously right that the inquiry be established under the Inquiries Act 2005 (IA 2005) so that witnesses could be compelled to attend and documents demanded with the reinforcement of criminal sanctions for non-compliance.

Now, an esoteric dispute has arisen between the inquiry and the government

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll