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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll