Ministers overruled legal advice from their own lawyers when they refused to give MPs a vote on lockdown, it has emerged. The Telegraph has the story.
Boris Johnson’s government sought advice from lawyers at the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) about whether to place the country into lockdown in early March 2020, as the COVID-19 virus began to sweep through the UK.
The advice, seen by the Telegraph, reveals that government lawyers told ministers they could use the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which is designed to give ministers sweeping powers in the event of a national emergency.
Any orders issued under the Act could only have remained in force for seven days without the approval of Parliament, and would have required a fresh vote from MPs every 30 days to be renewed.
However, the government decided instead to send the country into lockdown on three occasions using regulations under the Public Health Act 1984, meaning no Parliamentary vote or scrutiny was necessary.
The decision to issue lockdown orders without giving MPs a vote was deeply controversial, and has been described by Lord Sumption, the former Supreme Court judge, as “beyond the pale”.
After a lengthy legal battle, the Cabinet Office has been ordered to release the legal advice it received in the run-up to the first national lockdown.
Ben Kingsley, Legal Director of the campaign group UsForThem, applied in December 2023 for the legal advice to be released under freedom of information laws – but the Cabinet Office spent more than two years fighting the request.
The group argued that when Michael Gove, the former Cabinet minister, answered questions about the legal advice during the Covid Inquiry, it meant that he inadvertently waived the legal privilege of the documents.
Kingsley also made the case to the Information Commissioner that there was a “strong public interest” in publishing the advice. “In our view, it is difficult to imagine a more constitutionally significant act than the imposition on people’s lives imposed by the Covid restrictions,” he argued.
“There can be no doubt as to the breadth of individual freedoms that this legislation impinged upon. There was, of course, also a significant financial cost to the country as a consequence of the pandemic lockdown measures.”
The Cabinet Office’s lawyers argued that releasing the legal advice risked having a “chilling effect” on ministers and officials. Ultimately the tribunal ruled in Kingsley’s favour and ordered the Government to release the documents.
According to the documents, ministers were warned by lawyers that using the Public Health Act to impose a lockdown would probably come in for criticism over the lack of “Parliamentary scrutiny” involved.
“Any measure taken on this scale will face risk from an argument that such significant powers should be held in primary legislation, to allow suitable parliamentary scrutiny,” the legal advice says.
The legal advice, which was sent to ministers from DHSC lawyers eight days before lockdown was ordered, shows that ministers considered the legality of banning handshakes.
It noted that while such a move would be “legally enforceable”, it cautioned that there were “very significant practical/operational difficulties” in attempting this.
Ministers received separate legal advice from Cabinet Office lawyers on March 20th 2020, three days before lockdown was ordered. This stated that “emergency regulations under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 could be used” as long as it could be shown that it was a “proportionate response” to the threat faced.
Worth reading in full.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It was utterly disgraceful; a Communist-style Tyranny which I will never forget and never forgive.
But let’s not kid ourselves that, if given a vote, MPs would have voted against it. At the first permitted vote – months into the first lockdown – I seem to recall that Sir Charles Walker MP (Con) was virtually the only member who spoke out against it …. and a huge majority of MPs duly trooped through the lobby to keep the destruction of our economy and millions of lives going for even longer.
Like you, I will never forgive and never forget. I suspect that we are two of many, many people.
The fact it’s legal to lock people down as a ‘pandemic’ response is the problem. Lock downs do not work and never have, and funnily enough, never will. The same is true for vaccine interventions – none have worked once a proper scrutiny of the data is done.
Why?
Contagion is a myth and has been repeatedly falsified for the last 230 years. Nothing ‘spreads’ between humans, rather it’s exposure to toxic environments, cumulative stress, poor personal hygiene, poor diets, lack of direct sunlight and dysfunctional sleep patterns that causes ‘dis-ease’.
Reist the racket that is virology, immunology and genomics by exercising logic, reason and the scientific method.
Well said friend. 100%
“… argued that releasing the legal advice risked having a “chilling effect” on ministers and officials.”
And so it should – exactly why it should be released.
A chilling effect on Ministers and overly cocky civil servants is exactly the outcome we want. Another democratic failure by the Tories.
Although I agree we want a chilling effect before our government considers doing anything like this ever again, why would being required to publish the advice be chilling? We took legal advice, we thought it was wrong and we used our powers to do something else. The people had to suffer the consequences so why shouldn’t the people who made the decision? They’ve even had the ‘independent’ Hallett Inquiry endorse their decision to lock us up – except saying it should have been done sooner and harder. Why be coy about the advice they got and decided to ignore?
Because they didn’t think it was wrong, nor was it, it just wasn’t what they wanted to do. And they don’t want the Plebs to know that.
The reality is that Cold & ‘flu viruses follow a well know trajectory from early low rate, unnoticeable infection rate, then sudden exponential increase then hit a peak and decline.
They are seasonal arriving in late Autumn, peaking in Winter around late January/early February then become near invisible as Spring approaches, ie by mid-April.
That means by the time Lockdown was introduced, the virus was on its way out and Lockdown had absolutely no effect.
Infection to death was about 28 days. Peak deaths occurred in early March meaning infection rates peaked early February.
This behaviour of seasonal viruses was well understood – but like the legal advice, expert advice was dismissed too as it just wasn’t what they wanted to do. And PCR tests could find CoV 2 in a bed post. So it actually was a testademic.
Maybe Parliamentary scrutiny would have revealed all of this.
While I agree with most of your points*, it seem to me that them saying it would have a chilling effect is tantamount to admitting they got it wrong (accidentally or deliberately).
Edit: If these bastards want us to think they’re the heroes for saving us from Covid they would be saying what a wonderful job they did to ignore the cautious legal advice.
Except* peak (diagnosed as Covid) deaths were in week ending April 10 and peak any/all-cause deaths were registered in week ending 17 April which with the 28-day infection-to-death lead time puts peak infections around 12 March. Still well before lockdown could have had any effect.
Edit: For England and Wales.
“Testademic” is a brilliant description of what it was. I don’t think that the general population would ever tolerate another lockdown, given the lies that we were told, that have come to light. As for the Hallet so – called enquiry- what an utter waste of money.
And the dear departed Two Tier wanted everything to be worse.
Deliberately contravening a legal order to do something is one thing, ignoring advice is another, and that seems to be what happened here. Had the lawyers said “You cannot legally do this”, and ministers had ignored that, then that would have put them on shakier ground.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of the machinations behind the lockdown orders, the damage is done now and no amount of public hand-wringing and slapping of wrists is going to make the slightest bit of difference at this stage.
PS. Asking this as a linguist… Can advice be “overruled” anyway?
Honestly, I don’t think this matters one iota – almost all MPs had been captured by the same force and would have voted the lockdowns in anyway, and almost all the lemmings would have cheered the lockdowns on. This country, like most others across the globe, bowed to something sinister that caused most people to lose their heads in one form or another.
My reaction is: so?
Does the government have to follow all legal advice? Because if it does, then the lawyers are in charge. Advice is there to be taken or discarded.
I already know the state apparatus acted like the authoritarian tyranny it has ultimately revealed itself to be. Not because it didn’t go to parliament but because it put us all under arbitrary house arrest and then rolled out one draconian authoritarian measure after another.
Why would I spend a minute having a debate about what legal coverage it did or did not have? There are thousands of laws written vaguely enough for any legal argument to be constructed. In the end, what counts is the power to stand behind the legal argument.
In any case, Parliament subsequently rubber stamped everything the government proposed, de facto giving its consent to the whole disgusting episode.
If they had followed the legal advice it appears Parliament would have been asked to rubber stamp the measures at least once per month. I think the restrictions might have been lifted sooner if that had happened. I realise many people (not on DS) would still think that would not have been a Good Thing. One advantage would be that we’d have a much clearer idea of who were the heroes (if any) who were prepared to question the evidence in Parliament.
“Does the government have to follow all legal advice?”
Nobody has to follow any legal advice, it depends on whether or not they want to go to gaol.
Sumption said at the time that the CCA should have been used and that using the PHA was bordering on unconstitutional as the PHA was never intended to enable blanket restrictions. Seems like the government’s own lawyers broadly agree.
“The Cabinet Office’s lawyers argued that releasing the legal advice risked having a “chilling effect” on ministers and officials.” Lol yes, chilling indeed – next time maybe they will think harder before ignoring legal advice, or maybe next time they won’t ask for it or they will get verbal advice that no-one has any record of…
when they refused to give MPs a vote on lockdown
This can only mean that the elected representatives of the people, and thus the people themselves, are no longer sovereign. So who is sovereign in our country?
The Glorious Leader du jour?
Whoever (directly or indirectly) has the guns.
Who? The various International bodies, NGOs, global vested interests.