On the 26th June, after images and CCTV footage surfaced of Matt Hancock (the former Health Secretary) kissing Gina Coladangelo, various headlines were brought out from a multitude of media outlets. Many laws of the UK were breached and this article will explore them in further detail, regarding the accountability of Hancock and laws broken beyond him.
The Rules Breached by Matt Hancock
After the scandal, Hancock quit as Health Secretary and, in a letter to the Prime Minister before the resignation, he said the government "owe it to people who have sacrificed so much in this pandemic to be honest when we have let them down". This was said in relation to Hancock's breach of social distancing in his actions with Coladangelo, which was the most obvious Covid rule break that has lead to his subsequent scrutiny in light of the seriousness of the pandemic and importance of social distancing.
However, this was not the only law affected by this scandal. Hancock may have breached the ministerial code, which states that politicians heading government departments are responsible for avoiding a potential conflict of interest. According to points 7.1 and 7.2 in the code, “ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise”. This was arguably breached therefore as Hancock breaching social distancing guidelines in his private interests conflicted with his public duty as the Health Secretary of the UK. It can be argued that this is not explicitly a law in the UK, as no Act was passed for it, but, as of 2015, the code says that it ‘should be read against the background of the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law’, and therefore it plays a significant role and Hancock may be held accountable for breaching it.
meaning that a minister in the UK should always comply with the law and as both points 7.1 and 7.2 are within this code, it can be seen to suggest that Matt Hancock not only broke the Coronavirus Act 2020, but also the Ministerial Code.
These were the two clear rule breaks committed by Hancock but now there are apprehensions around privacy and other factors beyond Hancock himself.
The Rules Breached Beyond
Now that the laws broken by Hancock himself were considered; it is time to also take into account those beyond him.
The main law break beyond the actions of Hancock regards the laws surrounding privacy in the UK. As the CCTV footage was recorded without consent, this breaches the Data Protection Act 2018 as covert recordings may only be undertaken if a direct breach of the law has been identified and they are subsequently being done under a specific investigation. As there was no specific investigation taking place when Hancock and Coladangelo were unknowingly recorded, the recording itself arguably breached UK privacy laws and therefore whomever placed the CCTV camera in the position that recorded Hancock should be charged.
The severity of the laws broken by the leaking of the surveillance footage was also highlighted by officials investigating the leak and elected police chiefs who stated the investigation should become a criminal inquiry due to the seriousness of the security breach. This means that although Hancock’s rule breaches were severe, it must also be recognised that someone else has breached the law and should therefore be held accountable.
In relation to how the video came into The Sun’s hands, the biggest legal concern for The Sun may be the Bribery Act and Misconduct in Public Office, which has no public interest defence. This means any direct payment to a government employee for the story would be extremely risky for the journalist concerned. Misconduct in public office is an offence at common law triable only on indictment and may only be committed by those in public office who act (or fail to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of their office. This may therefore also be applicable to Hancock himself in relation to the aforementioned breach of his ministerial duty.
Furthermore, the breach of privacy may be looked at from a human rights perspective. The Human Rights Act 1998 states, in Article 8, “everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.” Evidently, Hancock’s right to a private life was breached by the leaked footage and therefore, even though the story of an affair may be classed as ‘exciting’ or ‘entertaining’ for the general public, its release arguably breached his human rights, despite his own unlawful action.
A Brief Explanation
Importantly, this article was not written to speculate debate as to who was more accountable or fuel questions such as whether the consequences of the leaking of the footage were proportional to the action itself. The purpose was to give a brief summary of the laws that were broken surrounding the leaked footage of Hancock to enable you to view the situation as a whole from a legal perspective as opposed to personal or political.
Comments