On Thursday 10th November, your counsel and legal team got together to panel another in our series of 'live client newsletter' webinars, this time updating you all on the developments following the Module 2 preliminary hearing.
Your panel includes Nicola Brook from your legal team, and Pete Weatherby KC, Jesse Nicholls and Mira Hammad from your counsel team.
Jesse Nicholls updates you on the Module 2 preliminary hearing outcomes and ruling, while Pete Weatherby KC discusses the latest surrounding Rule 9 Requests. Nicola Brook talks you through the opening of Module 3 and our plans to apply for Core Participant status on your behalf, and Mira Hammad delivers an update on the Listening Exercise. All questions that were asked on the evening have now been answered by the legal team, and questions with general relevance have been added to our Covid Inquiry FAQ page, which you can visit here. If you have any questions for your legal team, please don't hesitate to get in touch on covidinquiry@broudiejacksoncanter.co.uk
Webinar recording
Webinar FAQs
Q: Are we, the victims loved ones, owed compensation and verbal apologies?
A: The Inquiry will not look at issues of civil liability which go to compensation and there is no mechanism for compelling organisations or individuals to issue apologies within the framework of an inquiry. The role of the inquiry will be limited to fact finding and making recommendations. Having said this, in the past that inquiries have made critical findings which have resulted in apologies from organisations or individuals.
Q: Why did it take the Government so long to act?
A: This is a very important and wide-ranging question which will be covered in Module 2.
Q: Will the Inquiry seek statements or evidence from the RQIA with respect of their total lack of work in nursing homes before and during the pandemic?
A: This is being looked into and has been passed along to the Northern Ireland team.
Q: There is a precedence of withholding documents from a public inquiry, as follows: The Post Office inquiry has apparently been adjourned as there has been ‘a strongly worded row’ (Guardian, 12th October 2022) over the failure to disclose more than 30,000 documents.
Are there any steps that the Broudie Jackson Canter team can take in order to prevent this happening in the COVID-19 inquiry?
A: Different inquiries have taken different approaches to disclosure and sometimes this has changed along the way. For example, while the Grenfell Inquiry initially took a limited approach to disclosure, as it progressed it took a more expansive approach, obtaining a significant amount of disclosure, in areas we would like to see, such as private WhatsApp groups between senior civil servants.
We have expressed initial concerns about this Inquiry's approach to disclosure, particularly insofar as Module 2 and central government are concerned, where the Inquiry has chosen to employ a more restrictive criterion than asking for all relevant material. Unfortunately, the Inquiry has chosen largely to ignore the concerns we have raised so far. Ultimately, we have not yet received any disclosure from the Inquiry and so it is too early to judge at this point how expansive the Inquiry will be, although early indications are not very positive. We will continue to push for full and thorough disclosure.
Q: When will we know if we have Core Participant (CP) status on Module 3 and will be know who else is CP or will it be hidden until the hearing like the previous modules?
A: The deadline for our CP status application is the 5th December, so we expect to hear back soon after this time. Once we know who the other CPs are we will inform our clients of this information.
Q: I saw a report today that the Cabinet Office have been very late in responding to request from the parliament hearing into our ex-PMs behaviour. Will they be able to act in this way when asked to provide information to our Inquiry?
A: Only if the chair lets them, it is her imperative to chase them to comply in a time orderly fashion as she has the power in this area.
Q: Hugo Keith dismissed the concept of racism by saying to another CP group that (I paraphrase) if there were issues to do with racism, he would have seen it in his initial review of evidence. How do we, ethnic minority participants, deal with this dismissal?
A: This is an extremely important area with regards to terms of reference, and we have raised this to Lady Hallett at both preliminary hearings. We will ensure that the interests of minority participants are represented fully throughout the Inquiry.
Q: Will we be working with some of the other CP's and is this normal for inquiries?
A: Yes, we will work alongside any CP's who share the same interests as us.
Q: Is it normal not to provide Rule 9 requests to CPs?
A: Practice varies, it isn't unprecedented.
Q: Is the Inquiry subject to the Freedom of Information Act?
A: There are specific FOI exemptions for inquiries.
Q: I assume that it is reasonable to assume that the deluging of the Inquiry with so many documents is a tactical attempt by govt. departments to make the process as difficult as possible. Is it possible that the Inquiry Team can push back on this and demand more work at govt. level to address the issue of volume and thus knock down their arguments for not sharing information?
A: It is the Chair's imperative to push back against these departments and demand more work as it is her Inquiry. She has the power to do this, and we hope she will as the Inquiry progresses.
Q: Are the other groups being treated the same as us (poor inclusion, communication)?
A: The other CP's which we have met with share the view that the Inquiry doesn't want input from them or us.
Q: If we don't believe that the right companies have been enlisted have we any grounds for arguing against them from an ethical stance in relating to the vulnerable nature of the bereaved?
A: At the moment these companies are asked to advise on the process rather than conduct the exercise; your point is a good one which should feed into process.
Q: Will Module 3 look into the protection of vulnerable individuals in healthcare settings?
A: Within the provisional scope of Module 3, the Chair has said she will assess, 'Shielding and the impact on the clinically vulnerable'.
Q: Will Module 3 also be looking at any triage criteria that was in place in hospitals, how 'official' it was, who authorised it etc?
A: Module 3 will be assessing the advice in place in hospitals etc.
Q: Is it right to presume that in later modules they will look at hospital care and mistreatment etc. even the conduct of staff?
A: Module 3 will be focusing on the healthcare system and the impact of covid on these systems, patients and staff members.
Q: Are individual letters to the press on the perceived failings of the Inquiry so far likely to have any effect?
A: If you have any letters such as these, we encourage you to send them to ourselves so we can assess them for further relevance.