Top judge Lord Sumption accuses the Covid Inquiry of ignoring the ‘financial, social and educational’ harms caused by lockdown

One of Britain’s top judges has accused the Covid Inquiry of failing to explore the ‘financial, social and educational’ harms caused by multiple lockdowns.

Lord Sumption, who sat as a senior judge on the Supreme Court between 2012 and 2018, said the inquiry’s format is unlikely to include substantial questioning about lockdowns themselves.

Instead, those with a ‘position to defend’ – such as Cabinet ministers who have and will take the stand – will be asked scientific questions.

Lord Sumption has previously argued that the inquiry is ‘over-lawyered’, works at a ‘snail’s pace’, and is ‘inordinately expensive’.

He told the BBC yesterday: ‘The first question we’ve got to ask is whether, with the knowledge we have in hindsight, lockdowns were a good idea and effective in limiting the spread of the disease and whether the effects they had were worth the phenomenal collateral costs – financial, social and educational.

Lord Sumption (pictured), who sat as a senior judge on the Supreme Court between 2012 and 2018, said the inquiry’s format is unlikely to include substantial questioning about lockdowns themselves

‘Those are the really critical questions if we want to learn lessons for the future.

‘They do not appear to be on the agenda – they are not easily fitted into any of the six modules that the inquiry has identified, and what is more – there is no sign the inquiry is taking independent epidemiological advice.

‘They are going through the decision-making process and asking scientific questions of people who have a position to defend.’

During the pandemic, Lord Sumption was a consistent critic of the government’s lockdown policy, suggesting the measures were ‘all about protecting politicians’ backs’.

Lord Sumption has previously argued that the inquiry is ‘over-lawyered’, works at a ‘snail’s pace’, and is ‘inordinately expensive’. Pictured: Counsel to the Inquiry Hugo Keith KC as he questions former prime minister Boris Johnson

Last month he suggested the inquiry’s agenda and working methods were a ‘programme for failure’ that ‘ has been more interested in assigning blame’ than future-proofing the country from future pandemics.

‘The procedure of the inquiry distorts the exercise by creating a built-in bias in favour of lockdowns and other aggressive government interventions,’ he wrote in the Sunday Times.

‘The basic assumption is that lockdowns and other aggressive interventions were the answer and that the problem lay not in the conception but in the execution.’

Source: Read Full Article