Boris Johnson has backed the UK Covid Inquiry in its court battle to get the government to hand over documents and messages related to the handling of the pandemic.
The former prime minister’s lawyer said on Friday that Mr Johnson – who set up the probe – believed the chair Baroness Hallet should be entitled to “all documents that she reasonably considers are potentially relevant”.
It comes as the inquiry’s legal team argued that the probe should not be put into a “procedural strait-jacket” over what evidence it has access too.
In a day of legal proceedings at the High Court lawyers acting for the government argued that the inquiry’s order to hand over documents would “catch a substantial amount of irrelevant material”.
But Hugo Keith KC, representing the inquiry, said the legal power invoked by the inquiry to obtain the cache of documents did not require documents to pass a “relevancy test”.
“The plain benefit of that approach is that it allows the chair to cast her net suitably broadly … it is necessarily a test that is wide and diverse,” he told the court.
Mr Keith argued that it would not make sense for documentation to have to be deemed relevant in advance because “until she [the inquiry chair] sees the documents she can never know that the material is relevant”.
Baroness Hallett wants Mr Johnson’s WhatsApp messages, diaries and personal notebooks from the time of the pandemic as well as those of an advisor.
Mr Johnson has already handed over some of the documents himself and says he is “more than happy” to hand over the rest, which are said to be held on a mobile phone which he has been told not to access for security reasons.
On Friday Lord David Pannick KC, representing the former prime minister, said: “Mr Johnson considers that it is appropriate that the chair has all documents that she reasonably considers are potentially relevant to her ongoing investigation, and that that is consistent with the objectives of the inquiry, which Mr Johnson announced in May 2021.”
The KC top barrister said Mr Johnson “adopts” part of the legal submissions put forward by Lady Hallett to the High Court, adding:
“First, not only does the defendant’s interpretation promote the purpose of the legislation and the inquisitorial nature of public inquiries, it is also consistent with the objectives of this inquiry.
“In establishing the inquiry, Mr Johnson said in terms he wanted the state’s action to be placed ‘under the microscope’ and that the inquiry must be ‘free to scrutinise every document’. That is what the public expects and that is what should be done.”
Lord Pannick said the inquiry “should not be impeded in this process by technical debates as to perceived ‘relevance’.
He added: “For the inquiry to carry out its objectives, and for the public to have confidence that it is doing so, it must be for the chair, and not for the Cabinet Office, to decide what material is potentially relevant.”
But despite the ex PM’s apparent willingness the hand over the files, the Cabinet Office argues that the inquiry is going beyond its powers by demanding the documents because they could catch personal discussions.
The Cabinet Office has taken the inquiry to judicial review over the matter. The High Court hearing before Lord Justice Dingemans and Mr Justice Garnham, is due to conclude on Friday. The judges are expected to give their ruling at a later date.
Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Cabinet Office, said in written arguments: “These proceedings raise an important point of principle.”
He added that the power to demand evidence, contained in section 21 of the Inquiries Act 2005, is “expressly limited to documents ‘that relate to a matter in question at the inquiry“‘.
“What cannot be compelled … is documents which are clearly or unambiguously irrelevant to the matters within the terms of reference.”
