The Cabinet notified the chair of instruction of a notice at four o’clock in the afternoon, the deadline that had been set for the delivery of the files.
Ministers presented an unprecedented attempt in the High Court to hand over Boris Johnson’s unredacted WhatsApp messages and records to the government-commissioned public inquiry into the handling of Covid.
In a resolution condemned by bereaved families and opposition MPs, the Cabinet Office told the inquiry, led by retired judge Heather Hallett, that there were “important issues of principle” relating to the transmission of data that would not possibly be relevant.
Johnson said on Wednesday he had provided unredacted data to the Cabinet Office and suggested it split it into percentages with the investigation. But the branch fears it could set a precedent that could lead Lady Hallett to ask for WhatsApp messages from acting ministers, adding Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
Another layer of potential chaos was added Thursday night when Johnson personally wrote to Hallett to tell him he could directly send his unredacted messages and emails, if he helped the investigation.
This would take a position “without prejudice to judicial review,” the letter said, with Johnson adding that he understood the need for parts of decision-making to be private.
A spokesman for the inquiry said Hallett had been officially notified of the Cabinet Office’s plan to seek judicial review of his death request at four p. m. on Thursday, the deadline he had set for the production of evidence.
The Cabinet Office’s letter to the inquiry said legal proceedings were being initiated “with remorse and with the assurance that we will continue to cooperate fully with the investigation before and after the jurisdictional factor in question has been decided through the courts. “
Hours after its launch, however, a minister admitted he thought the government would lose its case. George Freeman, the science minister, told BBC Question Time: “I think it’s really vital that the regulations on this issue are clarified and I surely have no doubt that the courts will place Baroness Hallett with whatever evidence she deems relevant, and then we will continue. “
“Personally, I think it’s very likely that the courts want Baroness Hallett to present what evidence, but I think it’s proof of point value. “
Hallett first requested Johnson’s WhatsApp messages and notebooks, as well as text messages from one of his 10th assistants, Henry Cook, last month.
Thursday’s Cabinet Office letter said it had provided “as much data as possible,” adding WhatsApp messages from Johnson and Cook redacted for national security reasons and to remove “unambiguous material. “
The letter said that while Johnson had provided messages to the Cabinet Office, they were from May 2021, when he acquired a new phone, and also from the month he ordered the investigation. Officials had asked the former prime minister to provide previous WhatsApp communications, he added.
Johnson’s new diaries and notebooks would also be provided, with an edition, according to the letter, a procedure likely to be completed within the next two days.
Hallett insisted that she what clothing is applicable to the investigation.
The Guardian has learned that Sunak and Oliver Dowden, the deputy minister, signed the resolution to release a judicial review on Wednesday.
A best friend of Johnson’s said the explanation for why the former prime minister didn’t deliver messages from before May 2021 was because he replaced his phone after he learned his number had been indexed online, and got the security recommendation not to turn the old device back on. Johnson couldn’t see the previous messages, but was content to pass the phone to the investigation if necessary, the best friend said.
He had asked the Cabinet Office for conceivable security and technical assistance in this regard. The Cabinet Office was aware of this, the best friend added.
The prospect of a legal war with a formal public inquiry is very rare and risks a cover-up. When ministers organised the inquiry, they promised it would allow bereaved loved ones and others to know how to make decisions about the pandemic.
Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice said the prospect of the Cabinet Office proceeding with the investigation is “absolutely obscene”.
Sign up for the first edition
Archie Bland and Nimo Omer guide you through the most productive stories and what they mean, lose every weekday morning
After the promotion of the newsletter
Rivka Gottlieb, a spokeswoman for the organization, said: “Why is the state of the Cabinet Office getting in their way?He must assume that they are sitting on evidence that will devastate Rishi Sunak’s reputation and is more to them than saving lives in the future.
Angela Rayner, Labour’s vice-president, said the public “deserves answers, not cover-ups”.
He added: “Instead of digging deeper into a hole by pursuing doomed legal battles to cover up the truth, Rishi Sunak will have to fully comply with requests for evidence from the Covid investigation. There can be no more excuses.
Daisy Cooper, deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, said: “This cowardly attempt to obstruct a major public inquiry is a kick in the teeth for bereaved families who have already waited too long for answers. “
While an initial resolution on the matter may be made in a matter of days, which can suspend Hallett’s claims while the case is heard, a full hearing can take weeks.
The lengthy letter from the Cabinet Office said that what should go through the High Court was “whether the investigation has the force to compel the production of documents and messages that are clearly unrelated to the works of the investigation, adding private communications and issues unrelated to the government’s handling of covid. “
He continues: “We believe there are vital issues of precept at play here, affecting the rights of Americans and the intelligent conduct of government. The request for unequivocally irrelevant documents goes beyond the powers of the investigation. . . It represents an unwarranted intrusion into other facets of government work. It also represents an intrusion into your valid expectations of privacy and coverage of your nonpublic information.
The letter accompanied a legal document setting out the claim, listing the Cabinet Office as plaintiff, the investigation as defendant, and Johnson and Cook as “interested parties. “
The resolution to challenge the investigation has already caused disagreements within the government. Grant Shapps, the power secretary, said officials should be given “whatever they want” and there was nothing for ministers to “cower or embarrass”.
Jonathan Jones, who in the past headed the government’s legal department, told the Guardian he thought the courts would ultimately favour Hallett, if the government limited itself to arguing for reasons of relevance.