header-logo header-logo

06 May 2022
Issue: 7977 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Public
printer mail-detail

Tragic consequences of unlawful policy

80827
Questions have been raised over what the Health Secretary knew and when following the High Court’s decision that thousands of elderly patients were unlawfully discharged into care homes without being tested for COVID-19

The claimants Dr Cathy Gardner and Fay Harris both lost their fathers to the virus, which claimed more than 20,000 care home residents between March and June 2020 in England and Wales.

Ruling in R (Gardner & Anor) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWHC 967 (Admin), Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Graham held the secretary of state’s decision on admissions policy on 17 and 19 March and 2 April 2020 were unlawful. The reason was the policy, which did not require testing to take place before patients were moved, failed to take into account the risk of asymptomatic transmission, even though this risk had been explained by Sir Patrick Vallance from as early as 13 March.

Since the judgment was handed down last week, the former Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, has stated he was not provided soon enough with information about asymptomatic infection.

Writing in NLJ this week, however, John Ford, director of Sinclairslaw, which represented claimants Dr Gardner and Ms Harris in the case, says: ‘The judgment does not support this. The public law claim strikingly succeeded because there was no evidence that the minister had consulted anyone about how residents in care homes were to be looked after and protected following the discharge of hospital patients, some of whom may have been infected with the virus.’ 

Ford discusses the duty of candour, concluding: ‘It strains credibility to accept that the defendants gave proper disclosure in this case.’

He adds that his clients sought only declarations and it will be for the forthcoming public enquiry to establish exactly what happened and make recommendations.

 

Issue: 7977 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Public
printer mail-details
RELATED ARTICLES

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll