Latest in Oldknow v Evans. Unite has applied to intervene (union represents 5, currently anonymous, accused of leaking the report). Oldknow's QC opposes the application and says it's too late. Lawyer of Unite and 5 members says they applied asap after Tuesday hearing.
Purpose of Unite intervention would be to allow general submissions on Oldknow's application (to force Labour to reveal identities of leakers), not to directly allow unnamed to intervene. Judge expected to give decision shortly.
Judge has decided that she is going to allow Unite written submissions dated 24th February to be placed before the court focused on matters of the jurisdiction, but doesn't need to hear oral submissions from Unite's lawyer. She refuses permission for Oldknow's QC to appeal.
This allows Unite to intervene, but without the hearing taking ages, basically.
Labour's lawyer suggested 5 unnamed could be allowed to know what documents would be disclosed. Oldknow's lawyer objects, saying this would be a "vetting process" taking place in a "smoke-filled room" and instead it should be left to Labour to disclose relevant docs.
Labour is willing to disclose docs relating to its investigation of leak, but not to identify leakers directly. Party's QC is arguing (counter-intuitively!) that Labour is not disinterested – as it may be sued by Oldknow – and that its views of leaker identities may be wrong.
Basically, Labour is saying they did its best with the investigation but there's a chance the conclusions could be wrong, while Oldknow's QC is arguing that Labour's leak investigation was thorough and therefore its conclusions should be disclosed.
Read out judgement expected on Monday at 9am.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
