Verdict expected on FMD inquiry challenge

A High Court verdict on whether the British Government acted lawfully in refusing to hold a full public inquiry into last year’s foot-and-mouth disease epidemic is due to be delivered in London today.

Lawyers for a group of farmers and others affected by the outbreak have argued that the British government’s ‘‘quick fix’’ approach in holding three short inquiries with no public hearing of evidence was inadequate.

They contended there was no substitute for a much-needed and widely called-for public inquiry which was the key to restoration of confidence among members of the rural community.

At least, the current ‘‘Lessons Learned’’ inquiry being conducted by Dr Iain Anderson should have been full and open, it was claimed.

But UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith QC, for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary Margaret Beckett, argued that a more pressing need was to establish quickly the best ways of dealing with any future outbreak, which could happen at any time.

In any event, he said, Mrs Beckett’s decision was a matter of Government policy and was not open to review by the courts.

Lord Justice Simon Brown and Mr Justice Scott Baker have been asked to declare the decision unlawful in the light of the magnitude of the foot and mouth disaster - described by Dr Anderson himself as ‘‘one of the greatest social upheavals’’ since World War Two.

Eight farmers, two vets and five other individuals including hoteliers have accused the Government of ‘‘forsaking thoroughness in the interests of speed and efficiency’’.

The judges have also heard argument on behalf of media groups that postponement of publication of evidence until a private inquiry had reported was a breach of the ‘‘right to know’’ provisions of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, relating to freedom of expression.