Covid inquiry faces court battle over ministers’ WhatsApps

The Covid inquiry is set for a court battle with the Cabinet Office over government officials' plans to refuse to hand over ministers’ Whatsapps.

The inquiry has lodged a request for unredacted copies of Boris Johnson’s messages and 24 diaries from between January 2020 and February 2022.

Baroness Hallett, the inquiry’s chair, threatened legal action last week after the Cabinet Office refused to provide WhatsApp exchanges involving the former prime minister.

She gave the Government until 4pm on Tuesday to produce the messages. However,  The Telegraph understands that the Cabinet Office does not intend to supply them.

A senior Whitehall source said the Government was “confident” in its position that the messages are irrelevant to the then prime minister’s role in the pandemic.

The Telegraph understands that other ministers are concerned that their unredacted WhatsApps could be handed over to the Covid inquiry.

It raises the prospect that the inquiry could be delayed even further, having already been delayed while names of civil servants are redacted.

The inquiry has been criticised for the length of time it is expected to take, with documents revealing the Government is planning for it to last up to seven years. The chair of the inquiry into Covid in Sweden, meanwhile, has already completed his final report.

The Cabinet Office has refused to provide all Mr Johnson’s messages to inquiry chairman Baroness Hallett - saying to do so would be a “serious invasion of privacy”.

She has warned that failure to comply with her section 21 order of the Inquiries Act to release the material would amount to a criminal offence.

The Government says it has already handed over more than 55,000 documents, and said that if it releases material it deems “unambiguously irrelevant” it could set a harmful precedent.

Last night, Tory former leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith urged the Cabinet Office to stick to its decision not to submit the information.

He accused Lady Hallett of “trying to be Agatha Christie” by turning the inquiry into a “whodunnit” rather than “whatdunnit”.

“I think it’s completely unnecessary chasing individuals,” he said. “The key thing here is what happened, why did it happen, was it necessary and if not, was there a better way of doing it - and what are the lessons for the future.

“They are on a fishing expedition, and what they should do is stop fishing. There is enough evidence out there to know what went wrong.

“You don’t need to get unredacted messages, we know what the Government did, what more are you going to learn?”

Earlier this year, the Cabinet Office set out its approach to the inquiry, setting out its view that “unambiguously irrelevant” evidence would not be handed over, to comply with human rights and data protection laws.

They wrote: “The lack of jurisdiction over unambiguously irrelevant evidence is all the more clear in circumstances where that evidence is personal and private.

“The Inquiry owes duties as a data controller under the UK GDPR to protect personal data, and as a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998 to act compatibly with Article 8 ECHR rights.

“WhatsApp messages are particularly likely to involve the processing of personal data, potentially of various data subjects and potentially of data of some sensitivity (including special category data as defined in Article 9), including of junior officials whose identities the Inquiry has otherwise generally accepted should be redacted.”

Last night, a Cabinet Office spokesman said: “We are fully committed to our obligations to the Covid inquiry. As such, extensive time and effort has gone into assisting the inquiry fulsomely over the last 11 months. We will continue to provide all relevant material to the inquiry, in line with the law, ahead of proceedings getting under way.”

Daisy Cooper, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, said: “Failing to hand over the evidence in full, as requested by the chair of the Covid inquiry, would make a mockery of this whole process and would be yet another insult to bereaved families still waiting for justice.

"The public deserves the whole truth about what went wrong. Vital evidence shouldn't be kept secret just to spare ministers' blushes."