Matt Hancock broke the law over appointments, High Court rules
Matt Hancock broke the law when he gave Conservative peer Baroness Dido Harding and ex-Sainsbury colleague Mike Coupe senior posts in Covid response, High Court finds
<!–
<!–
<!–<!–
<!–
(function (src, d, tag){
var s = d.createElement(tag), prev = d.getElementsByTagName(tag)[0];
s.src = src;
prev.parentNode.insertBefore(s, prev);
}(“https://www.dailymail.co.uk/static/gunther/1.17.0/async_bundle–.js”, document, “script”));
<!–
DM.loadCSS(“https://www.dailymail.co.uk/static/gunther/gunther-2159/video_bundle–.css”);
<!–
Matt Hancock broke the law by appointing two insiders to senior public health posts without any criticism, the High Court ruled today.
Two judges found the former health secretary did not comply with a public sector equality duty when appointing Conservative peer Baroness Dido Harding and her former Sainsbury’s colleague Mike Coupe to top positions in 2020.
Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Swift granted a declaration to the Runnymede Trust today after considering arguments at a High Court hearing in December.
Mr Hancock with his new partner Gina Coladangelo speaking to Steven Bartlett’s The Diary Of A CEO podcast
Campaign group the Good Law Project joined the trust in making complaints – arguing that the Government had not adopted an “open” process when making appointments to posts “critical to the pandemic response” – but their claim was dismissed.
Judges concluded that Mr Hancock had not complied with “the public sector equality duty” in relation to the decisions to appoint Baroness Harding as interim executive chair of the National Institute for Health Protection in August 2020 and Mr Coupe as director of testing for NHS Test and Trace in September 2020.
Lawyers representing the two organisations suggested that people “outside the tight circle” in which senior Conservative politicians and their friends moved were not being given opportunities.
They said an unfair policy was being challenged.
Ministers disputed the claims made against them.
Jason Coppel QC, who led the two organisations’ legal teams, told Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Swift that the challenge was based on equality legislation and public law.
He said the Government had a “policy or practice” of “making appointments to posts critical to the pandemic response” without adopting any, or any sufficient, “fair or open competitive processes”.
Mr Coppel said people “less likely to be known or connected to decision-makers” were put at a disadvantage.
He also said the Government was failing to offer “remuneration for high-level full-time roles” and “excluding all candidates who were not already wealthy” or held other posts for which they would continue to be paid.
