ETHICAL APPROACH UK

Did the Solicitors Regulation Authority consider Paul Easter’s report before giving its assurance about Government contact? On 9 July 2025, the SRA told me that it had not been approached by Government or its representatives “to discourage or obstruct solicitors challenging COVID 19 related policies”. On 15 February 2022, Paul Easter submitted a report to the SRA about Philip Hyland and PJH Law. He identified himself as working for the Department of Health and Social Care “on behalf of HMG assessing risks to the UK Vaccine programme” and called for urgent regulatory action. His stated role does not, by itself, establish the purpose of the approach. That is precisely why I asked the SRA whether it considered the report and the capacity in which Mr Easter said he was acting before giving its assurance. If it did, how did it reconcile the two? If it did not, what enquiries supported the assurance, and does the SRA still stand by it as worded? I also asked what material the SRA received from Government sources, what it understood about where that material came from, how it used it, and whether later Metropolitan Police clarifications about CRN 6029679/21 affected its assessment of the allegation that Mr Hyland had disseminated misinformation. The SRA acknowledged my original correspondence on 6 October and said a substantive response would follow. As of noon on 12 November 2026, neither that response nor the acknowledgement requested in my 9 November follow-up had been received. I have therefore published the correspondence in the public interest. Any substantive response received from the SRA will be placed on the public record alongside it, so readers can consider the SRA’s account in its own words. Relevant correspondence to date may be examined via this link: ethicalapproach.co.uk/sra_pu…

Was the “guidance to not record” ever meant to be known outside policing? On 14 February 2022, internal policing correspondence stated that the “guidance to not record has been a success”. Someone within policing was prepared to pronounce it a success. Who, outside the chain of command, was given the opportunity to examine what it did? In the policing evidence to the UK Covid-19 Inquiry that we have reviewed, we have found no express account of the guidance. Nor have we identified a record showing that it was put before Operation Talla’s Ethics Committee. This makes it reasonable to ask whether the guidance was intended to remain an internal police matter, even though it may have shaped how police dealt with allegations brought by the public. There is a straightforward way to test that possibility. If the guidance was disclosed to the Inquiry, identify the exhibit or transcript. If it was put before the Ethics Committee, identify the referral and the minute. If it went to neither, say so and explain why. Policing recorded its own verdict on the "guidance to not record" - It was hailed as “a success”. Where is the record of anyone being asked to scrutinise it?

Why, given the detail with which written statements and oral testimony to the UK Covid-19 Inquiry (@covidinquiryuk) describe how Britain was policed during the pandemic, is there no evident mention of the very guidance which the NPCC’s (@PoliceChiefs) own internal correspondence described as “guidance to not record”?

An official 2019 document explains how police and regulators should work together when patients may have suffered avoidable harm. 2022 police correspondence tells a complainant to seek legal advice or contact his MP. The CQC–NPCC Memorandum of Understanding concerns incidents of avoidable harm, or significant risk of it, in health and social care in England. Where police and the CQC both have an interest, it calls for early liaison, clear lines of enquiry and arrangements for recording and sharing relevant material. It distinguishes the CQC’s regulatory role from the investigation of offences such as manslaughter, wilful neglect and ill-treatment. On 10 January 2022, Mark Sexton asked the Metropolitan Police to arrange for doctors and professors to give their accounts in relation to CRN 6029679/21. Two days later, Detective Inspector Chibber replied from the Commissioner’s Office, saying the allegation had been recorded, initially assessed and closed. He then went further - He said allegations against the Government’s Covid regulations and vaccine programmes were “not a matter for the Met police to investigate as allegation of a criminal offence”. Even if Mark had “specific information and medical evidence”, the advice from Chibber was to seek legal advice about litigation or to contact his MP. The email identified no police route at all for the offered accounts to be assessed. Here lies the difficulty - The MOU starts with the facts of an incident and asks who should examine them. DI Chibber's email gives a reason framed by the subject of the allegations. It does not explain whether any specific incidents were identified or assessed separately. Were any incidents in health or social care identified and considered on their own facts? Was the CQC consulted where its remit was potentially engaged? Where are the decisions recorded? The Met’s email tells us where it sent the complainant. The Met’s records should therefore tell us what it did with the material Mark brought to them.

This below identifies the basics. We have the tickets to back it up.

The entire Operation Talla policing framework is looking increasingly like it is rejecting engagement with accountability for Operation Talla itself, in the same fashion it rejected criminal allegations by members of the public.

It's not difficult to understand, but it's scary for some to speak about. Here is the plain guide, short and to the point. ethicalapproach.co.uk/Plain_…

On 12 January 2022, Detective Inspector Akshay Chibber wrote from the Met Commissioner’s Office that allegations concerning the Government’s Covid regulations and vaccine programmes were “not a matter for the Met police to investigate as allegation of a criminal offence”. Even if the complainant had specific information and medical evidence, the advice was to seek legal advice about suing the Government or to contact an MP. That leaves the Met with a difficult question it must answer: Would it have assessed specific evidence of an alleged offence on its merits, or had the subject matter already put it beyond police consideration? My analysis sets out exactly what the email said and what the Met still needs to explain. A link to the actual email itself is also included. Read and download the analysis here: ethicalapproach.co.uk/chibbe…