Rishi Sunak has suffered a major blow as the High Court ordered the Government to release Boris Johnson’s unredacted WhatsApp messages and notebooks to the Covid Inquiry.
Causing another headache for the embattled PM, judges said there were no grounds to block inquiry chairwoman Baroness Heather Hallett's order to hand over the material.
The judgement will mean inquiry officials will have access to message exchanges between Mr Johnson and former and current ministers, including Mr Sunak and ex-PM Liz Truss.
Lawyers for the Cabinet Office had attempted to argue the inquiry does not have the legal power to force it to release documents which are "unambiguously irrelevant" and cover matters "unconnected to the Government's handling of Covid".
But top judges said today it has decided to "dismiss the claim for judicial review" as it said: We "find that the Chair of the Inquiry acted rationally in issuing the section 21(2)(b) notice and making the ruling".
A Government spokesman said: "We will comply fully with this judgment and will now work with the Inquiry team on the practical arrangements."
It was highly unusual for the Government to launch a costly judicial review of the inquiry chairwoman’s decision not to release the material.
It came despite being estimated to cost tens of thousands of pounds and a government minister publicly admitting the Cabinet Office was likely to lose.
The move attracted criticism after days of bitter public wrangling between the Cabinet Office and the inquiry after Lady Hallett rejected its argument the material was not relevant in a May ruling.
Mr Johnson threw his weight behind her as he blasted Mr Sunak's government for trying to stop the inquiry getting hold of his unredacted WhatsApp messages.
Elkan Abrahamson, head of major inquests and inquiries at Broudie Jackson Canter, who represents the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK group, said: “This is the correct decision to ensure the inquiry maintains its authority and allows it to get to the truth. Without full access to all relevant evidence the integrity of the inquiry would have been further undermined and left toothless by the very government that set it up.
"We hope the government will accept the decision and, as they keep urging us to do after their breaches of covid rules, ‘move on’. We would also urge the inquiry to be as transparent with us as they want the Cabinet Office to be with them, something they have failed to do since the inquiry started.”
Shadow Deputy Leader Angela Rayner said: “While the rest of the country battles the cost-of-living crisis, Rishi Sunak has been wasting time and taxpayers’, money on doomed legal battles to withhold evidence from the Covid Inquiry. After this latest humiliating defeat, the Prime Minister must accept the ruling and comply with the Inquiry’s requests for evidence in full.
“The public deserve answers, not more attempts by the Prime Minister to undermine the Covid Inquiry. There can be no more excuses for concealing the truth. It's time to hand over the evidence."
A Government spokesman said: “The Inquiry is an important step to learn lessons from the pandemic and the Government is cooperating in the spirit of candour and transparency.
“As this judgment acknowledges, our judicial review application was valid as it raised issues over the application of the Inquiries Act 2005 that have now been clarified. The Court's judgment is a sensible resolution and will mean that the Inquiry Chair is able to see the information she may deem relevant, but we can work together to have an arrangement that respects the privacy of individuals and ensures completely irrelevant information is returned and not retained."
In arguments put before the court, Mr Johnson's lawyers said he has "no objection" to the inquiry having the unredacted material, subject to "appropriate security and confidentiality arrangements" being in place.
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."
He went on: "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."
Hugo Keith KC, representing the inquiry chairwoman, said the Cabinet Office's argument was "at its heart nonsensical".
"There is no point of principle underpinning the Cabinet Office's argument," he successfully argued.
* Follow Mirror Politics on Snapchat , Tiktok , Twitter and Facebook .
