There was a big, and welcome, Covid win for the unvaccinated carers who took the Government to court, with the court deciding the Government erred.

It's not the first time the Government has lost or has been found to err in court over Covid.

But this one seemed particularly egregious to me.

This, in a way, goes back to the Matt Hancock scandal in Britain where his astonishing series of WhatsApp messages, as well as email and text communications, during Covid showed just what a mess the whole Government approach was.

I asked at the time what sort of picture would be painted if we had the local versions available to us.

The court cases that have been taken, to a very small degree, give us an insight.

The family carers had their funding stopped and they were threatened with fines.

The judge has found that the mandate was invalid because it was not a decision that was available to the minister on the basis of the information that was before him at the time.

They hadn't originally been included in the mandates but the minister was advised to amend the order. The key was no public advice was given in the briefing to the minister as to why the amendments should be made.

There was not enough information before him to make the amendment - and yet he did.

Oh, by the way, the minister we refer to? Chris Hipkins.

It was clearly driven by the Government's one stop shop approach. They wanted a vaccinated work force and there was no room for exceptions or subtlety.

So, with a stroke of a pen the carers were out, the money was stopped and they were alienated for a year.

I'm not sure whether this victory puts it right for them. They want an apology, which I would have thought was a forgone conclusion, and the Government is looking to cough the money they stopped.

But it is another insight into what clearly was a frantic mess behind the scenes, where anything was accepted and they took a “we will explain later approach”.

There were two broad approaches that Governments could have taken to Covid. Either lead by example and clarity and take the people with you, or bludgeon them with fear and dictate.

They chose the 'Pulpit of Truth', it cost a Prime Minister her job - and they ended up in court and, on this example, lost.

With the benefit of hindsight, and SME legal action, it's becoming more and more clear they made the wrong choice.