header-logo header-logo

29 June 2023 / John Gould
Issue: 8031 / Categories: Opinion , Covid-19 , Public
printer mail-detail

The COVID inquiry: what’s relevant?

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll