Support 110 years of independent journalism.

  1. Politics
  2. UK Politics
15 June 2021

Gavin Williamson, Matt Hancock and Michael Gove acted unlawfully during Covid-19 – what happens next?

From Covid-19 contracts to vulnerable children, three cabinet ministers so far have been ruled by the High Court as breaking the law during the pandemic response.

By Anoosh Chakelian

The Royal Courts of Justice in central London have for months played host to a subplot of the Covid-19 crisis – ministers potentially in breach of the law.

So far, High Court judges have ruled that three cabinet ministers – Education Secretary Gavin Williamson, Health Secretary Matt Hancock and Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove – have acted unlawfully in their responses to coronavirus.

Covid-19 contracts and child safeguards

Last November, the Court of Appeal ruled that Williamson acted unlawfully by removing safeguards for children in care at the start of the pandemic without consulting children’s rights organisations.

In February, Hancock was found by a High Court judge to have acted unlawfully by failing to publish multibillion-pound Covid-19 contracts within the legal 30-day period.

Last week on 9 June, Gove was found to have broken the law by awarding a £560,000 contract to a communications company called Public First, which is run by associates of himself and Dominic Cummings – a decision tainted by “apparent bias and was unlawful”, according to the High Court decision.

Select and enter your email address Your weekly guide to the best writing on ideas, politics, books and culture every Saturday. The best way to sign up for The Saturday Read is via The New Statesman's quick and essential guide to the news and politics of the day. The best way to sign up for Morning Call is via
  • Administration / Office
  • Arts and Culture
  • Board Member
  • Business / Corporate Services
  • Client / Customer Services
  • Communications
  • Construction, Works, Engineering
  • Education, Curriculum and Teaching
  • Environment, Conservation and NRM
  • Facility / Grounds Management and Maintenance
  • Finance Management
  • Health - Medical and Nursing Management
  • HR, Training and Organisational Development
  • Information and Communications Technology
  • Information Services, Statistics, Records, Archives
  • Infrastructure Management - Transport, Utilities
  • Legal Officers and Practitioners
  • Librarians and Library Management
  • Management
  • Marketing
  • OH&S, Risk Management
  • Operations Management
  • Planning, Policy, Strategy
  • Printing, Design, Publishing, Web
  • Projects, Programs and Advisors
  • Property, Assets and Fleet Management
  • Public Relations and Media
  • Purchasing and Procurement
  • Quality Management
  • Science and Technical Research and Development
  • Security and Law Enforcement
  • Service Delivery
  • Sport and Recreation
  • Travel, Accommodation, Tourism
  • Wellbeing, Community / Social Services
Visit our privacy Policy for more information about our services, how Progressive Media Investments may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications.

What happens when ministers break the law?

Voters may expect some punishment, or resignations. The average member of the public, after all, cannot blithely break the law without sanction. Yet when the work of government is found to be on the wrong side of the law, there appear to be fewer consequences.

Ministers through the work of their departments and their role running them are “frequently found to have acted unlawfully when judicial review goes against them”, says constitutional expert Dr Catherine Haddon, a senior fellow at the Institute for Government. This is a “normal part of government” and some of the coronavirus cases are “similar in type to that, for all the drama around them”.

Consequences can range from a change in policy or law, pay-outs, or simply as a block against the government acting the same way again.

“There is more of a focus in these cases on the ministers in question, and when it is about their behaviour and decisions specifically in the case, it of course carries more weight than if it is the government or department in general that is seen to have erred,” Haddon adds.

But “there is a general feeling that a minister’s accountability is first and foremost to parliament”.

Will Gavin Williamson, Matt Hancock or Michael Gove resign?

It is “rare” for ministers to break the law knowingly, says Alex Thomas, the former principal private secretary to the late cabinet secretary Jeremy Heywood, and an experienced civil servant who is now programme director at the Institute for Government.

“They might know that a course of action was of high legal risk, but if they know for certain that it’s unlawful then they shouldn’t do it.” A recent example is when ministers pursued the prorogation of parliament in 2019, which the Supreme Court ruled was unlawful. “It was legally questionable but reasonable to pursue and test in the courts,” reflects Thomas.

(Such cases are separate from those that are a matter of personal conduct, when politicians are found individually to have broken the law.)

After Hancock was found to have acted unlawfully, the Justice Secretary Robert Buckland argued that “getting something wrong is not the same as deliberately flouting the law”.

“Every day, every month, there are cases bought against the government about whether it has acted lawfully or not,” he told ITV’s Good Morning Britain at the time. “There are plenty of times when the court says no.

“The important thing is for the government to act according to the ruling of the court… If the government carries on ignoring the rulings and breaking the law, that would be unacceptable.”

Yet Hancock refused to apologise for – or resign over – his unlawful actions, and dismissed the ruling against him as simply relating to “delayed paperwork”.

This is a familiar attitude among ministers who have made catastrophic mistakes or acted unlawfully over the course of the pandemic.

The Cabinet Office appeared to dismiss last week’s ruling too, claiming the judgement made clear “there was no suggestion of actual bias” (even though that wasn’t the case against it).

“I’ve got no difficulty with Buckland’s binary. The problem is that ministers sit inside it: showing too little interest in whether their actions are lawful,” says Jolyon Maugham QC, a barrister and director of the Good Law Project, the organisation which took Gove and Hancock to court.

“You and I comply with the law because there are serious consequences if we don’t. But when ministers break the law, they don’t apologise or resign. They tend to shrug their shoulders and – as with Gove last week – dissemble victory. To the outside world, it looks as though they have lost all interest in whether their actions are lawful or not.”

The requirement for a politician to resign over legal breaches during the pandemic is a political judgement. Aside from a purge last November of No 10 advisers such as Cummings and Lee Cain, heads have yet to roll as a result of the Covid-19 crisis.

“The concern for those of us watching government is whether we are starting to see a pattern of behaviour in these cases,” says Haddon.

“It is the cases themselves and the revelations they bring that are therefore important because they are shining light on government activity, upholding transparency, forcing disclosures and reminding ministers that they have to be able to defend their actions.”

Content from our partners
What you need to know about private markets
Work isn't working: how to boost the nation's health and happiness
The dementia crisis: a call for action