ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Opps, read that as a comma. Apologies
The Good Law Project
- Thread starter Tony L
- Start date
Tony L
Administrator
Dirty corrupt government playing dirty as expected. With our money, obviously. Bunch of crooks:
“If you have a bottomless pit of money, you can break the law with impunity by making it too expensive for people to go to Court. We increasingly see conduct with that flavour from this Government - but nothing quite like this: Government has estimated it will spend a staggering £1.2 million defending a challenge from Good Law Project. We only expect the hearing to take one day and the facts are simple. When the case was stayed, the costs were about £30,000. They repeatedly refused to give us the estimates of their costs so we could apply for a cap. Then, they told us they had spent over £600,000 and were continuing to spend.
Our lawyers tell us it’s an unprecedented sum. The evidence is that costs incurred by the Government in judicial review proceedings rarely exceed £100,000. We are a small non-profit, funded by donations from members of the public. We cannot carry this kind of risk, a fact the Government well knows. We can’t help but wonder whether killing us, or dissuading us from using the law, is the point of their spending. We have now applied for a cap but are on the hook for a vast sum if we don’t get one.
This particular case involves a former Conservative politician who runs for a lobbying company who was brought into the Department of Health and Social Care as an advisor, and pushed for one of his lobbying clients to win a huge PPE contract.
This latest example of the Government’s attempts to price us out of litigation shows just what we are up against in 2022. They are trying to make this year the year the Empire strikes back.
But we’re still here, and as long as we have the support of thousands of people up and down the country, we will keep going.
Thank you,
Jo Maugham - Good Law Project
Good Law Project only exists thanks to donations from people across the UK. If you’re in a position to support our work, you can do so here:
Donate”
“If you have a bottomless pit of money, you can break the law with impunity by making it too expensive for people to go to Court. We increasingly see conduct with that flavour from this Government - but nothing quite like this: Government has estimated it will spend a staggering £1.2 million defending a challenge from Good Law Project. We only expect the hearing to take one day and the facts are simple. When the case was stayed, the costs were about £30,000. They repeatedly refused to give us the estimates of their costs so we could apply for a cap. Then, they told us they had spent over £600,000 and were continuing to spend.
Our lawyers tell us it’s an unprecedented sum. The evidence is that costs incurred by the Government in judicial review proceedings rarely exceed £100,000. We are a small non-profit, funded by donations from members of the public. We cannot carry this kind of risk, a fact the Government well knows. We can’t help but wonder whether killing us, or dissuading us from using the law, is the point of their spending. We have now applied for a cap but are on the hook for a vast sum if we don’t get one.
This particular case involves a former Conservative politician who runs for a lobbying company who was brought into the Department of Health and Social Care as an advisor, and pushed for one of his lobbying clients to win a huge PPE contract.
This latest example of the Government’s attempts to price us out of litigation shows just what we are up against in 2022. They are trying to make this year the year the Empire strikes back.
But we’re still here, and as long as we have the support of thousands of people up and down the country, we will keep going.
Thank you,
Jo Maugham - Good Law Project
Good Law Project only exists thanks to donations from people across the UK. If you’re in a position to support our work, you can do so here:
Donate”
ff1d1l
pfm Member
Fairly obvious why they want the GLP shut down....latest email:
Good Law Project has seen documents showing the Government misled Parliament, the National Audit Office and the High Court about the size of the illegal VIP lane it adopted, which advantaged associates of Government Ministers.
In October 2020, Good Law Project revealed the existence of the VIP lane. In November 2020, the Government informed the National Audit Office that there were 47 VIPs. In November 2021, after losing an FOI battle with Good Law Project, it published a list of 50 VIPs. However, internal Government documents leaked to Good Law Project now reveal that the true number of companies fast-tracked down the ‘VIP’ lane was far higher.
We can reveal that at least 18 other companies, who between them were directly awarded a further £984 million in PPE contracts, were also given the ‘VIP’ treatment.
The full list of additional names can be found here. These 68 VIPs were awarded a total of £4.9 billion in PPE contracts - all without competition.
The new VIPs include:
As a supporter on Good Law Project's mailing list, you are hearing about this extraordinary story first. Will you share this with your friends and family and invite them to sign up to our mailing list:
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Share on WhatsApp
Thanks for your support,
Jo Maugham - Good Law Project
Good Law Project approached the DHSC and Cabinet Office for comment. The 18 companies named above may not have been aware they were included on a ‘VIP’ list and no wrongdoing by the companies is alleged.
Good Law Project only exists thanks to donations from people across the UK. If you’re in a position to support our work, you can do so here
Donate
Good Law Project has seen documents showing the Government misled Parliament, the National Audit Office and the High Court about the size of the illegal VIP lane it adopted, which advantaged associates of Government Ministers.
In October 2020, Good Law Project revealed the existence of the VIP lane. In November 2020, the Government informed the National Audit Office that there were 47 VIPs. In November 2021, after losing an FOI battle with Good Law Project, it published a list of 50 VIPs. However, internal Government documents leaked to Good Law Project now reveal that the true number of companies fast-tracked down the ‘VIP’ lane was far higher.
We can reveal that at least 18 other companies, who between them were directly awarded a further £984 million in PPE contracts, were also given the ‘VIP’ treatment.
The full list of additional names can be found here. These 68 VIPs were awarded a total of £4.9 billion in PPE contracts - all without competition.
The new VIPs include:
- Hong Kong based oil and gas firm Jason Offshore Equipment was handed a £25 million contract in June 2020. 18 months later, the DHSC still hasn’t published the contract, directly contradicting Boris Johnson’s claims in Parliament that all PPE contracts were now “on the record”.
- PPE contracts worth £173 million were awarded to China Meheco Co. Ltd and Winner Medical, both of whom have been linked to Uighur human rights abuses in Xinjiang. Government has previously misled the public about other aspects of the deal.
- A £96 million contract awarded to Beijing Union Glory Investment Co. Ltd - a firm that operated out of a hotel room in Beijing.
- State controlled China National Instruments Import & Export Group landed three contracts worth £130,000,000.
As a supporter on Good Law Project's mailing list, you are hearing about this extraordinary story first. Will you share this with your friends and family and invite them to sign up to our mailing list:
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Share on WhatsApp
Thanks for your support,
Jo Maugham - Good Law Project
Good Law Project approached the DHSC and Cabinet Office for comment. The 18 companies named above may not have been aware they were included on a ‘VIP’ list and no wrongdoing by the companies is alleged.
Good Law Project only exists thanks to donations from people across the UK. If you’re in a position to support our work, you can do so here
Donate
Tony L
Administrator
A significant victory today!
“In a landmark verdict, the High Court has today found that the process leading to the appointments of both Dido Harding and Mike Coupe was unlawful. It held that Matt Hancock broke the law in appointing Dido Harding as Chair of the National Institute for Health Protection (NIHP) and in appointing Mike Coupe as Director of Testing at Test and Trace (NHSTT). The High Court was also clear that the Prime Minister broke the law in appointing Dido Harding as Chair of Test and Trace.
The Court declared: “The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care did not comply with the public sector equality duty in relation to the decisions how to appoint Baroness Harding as Interim Executive Chair of the NIHP in August 2020 and Mr Coupe as Director of Testing for NHSTT in September 2020.” (paragraph 138 of the judgment)
While the formal declaration reflects only the appointments made by Matt Hancock, the High Court is clear that the process adopted by the Prime Minister was also unlawful (paragraph 116 of the judgment). All three appointments breached the public sector equality duty.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court accepted the argument made by race equality think tank the Runnymede Trust and Good Law Project that the recruitment process adopted by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State ignored the need to eliminate discrimination against the country’s disabled and ethnic minority communities, and to ensure they have equality of opportunity.
In appointing the wife of Boris Johnson’s Anti-Corruption Tsar John Penrose MP to Chair the National Institute for Health Protection, the Government failed to consider the effects on those who, the data shows, are too often shut out of public life. The Government also ignored its own internal guidance, which requires Ministers to consider how discrimination law will be complied with.
The Runnymede Trust and Good Law Project brought the case to highlight what it means to disadvantaged groups for the Government to push its associates and donors into key jobs. The Court’s declaration will have a real impact on how public appointments are made in the future.
The Government must now take seriously its legal and moral obligations to narrow the disadvantages faced by people with disabilities and those of colour. Public appointments must not be made without taking steps to eliminate discrimination and to advance equality of opportunity, even when normal processes don’t apply, for instance during a public health emergency. The Government will now have to be much more careful to make sure its recruitment processes are fair, equitable and open to all.
We want to thank you for your continued support of this case. Without you, we simply couldn’t have done this. We are the arrow, but you are the bow.
Thank you,
Jo Maugham - Good Law Project
You can read the full judgment from the High Court here.
Good Law Project only exists thanks to donations from people across the UK. If you’re in a position to support our work, you can do so here:
Donate”
“In a landmark verdict, the High Court has today found that the process leading to the appointments of both Dido Harding and Mike Coupe was unlawful. It held that Matt Hancock broke the law in appointing Dido Harding as Chair of the National Institute for Health Protection (NIHP) and in appointing Mike Coupe as Director of Testing at Test and Trace (NHSTT). The High Court was also clear that the Prime Minister broke the law in appointing Dido Harding as Chair of Test and Trace.
The Court declared: “The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care did not comply with the public sector equality duty in relation to the decisions how to appoint Baroness Harding as Interim Executive Chair of the NIHP in August 2020 and Mr Coupe as Director of Testing for NHSTT in September 2020.” (paragraph 138 of the judgment)
While the formal declaration reflects only the appointments made by Matt Hancock, the High Court is clear that the process adopted by the Prime Minister was also unlawful (paragraph 116 of the judgment). All three appointments breached the public sector equality duty.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court accepted the argument made by race equality think tank the Runnymede Trust and Good Law Project that the recruitment process adopted by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State ignored the need to eliminate discrimination against the country’s disabled and ethnic minority communities, and to ensure they have equality of opportunity.
In appointing the wife of Boris Johnson’s Anti-Corruption Tsar John Penrose MP to Chair the National Institute for Health Protection, the Government failed to consider the effects on those who, the data shows, are too often shut out of public life. The Government also ignored its own internal guidance, which requires Ministers to consider how discrimination law will be complied with.
The Runnymede Trust and Good Law Project brought the case to highlight what it means to disadvantaged groups for the Government to push its associates and donors into key jobs. The Court’s declaration will have a real impact on how public appointments are made in the future.
The Government must now take seriously its legal and moral obligations to narrow the disadvantages faced by people with disabilities and those of colour. Public appointments must not be made without taking steps to eliminate discrimination and to advance equality of opportunity, even when normal processes don’t apply, for instance during a public health emergency. The Government will now have to be much more careful to make sure its recruitment processes are fair, equitable and open to all.
We want to thank you for your continued support of this case. Without you, we simply couldn’t have done this. We are the arrow, but you are the bow.
Thank you,
Jo Maugham - Good Law Project
You can read the full judgment from the High Court here.
Good Law Project only exists thanks to donations from people across the UK. If you’re in a position to support our work, you can do so here:
Donate”
Tim Jones
pfm Member
As I've said before on other cases, people really should read the judgement in full (or at least its findings) and exercise at least a little bit of forensic analysis, as opposed to letting their presumptions carry the day. And having done so, if anyone were to regard this as a "victory" for the GLP, I'm afraid their reading comprehension would have to be in question.
To quote para 126 of the judgement verbatim:
126. The collective effect of the conclusions set out during this judgment is that the claim brought by Good Law Project fails in its entirety. The claim by the Runnymede Trust fails on Grounds 1 and 3; it succeeds on Ground 2 only to the extent that the decisions on the process to be used when appointing to the positions of Interim Chair of NIHP in August 2020, and Director of Testing at NHSTT in September 2020 were made without compliance with the public sector equality duty.
The solitary finding against HMG here was the Runnymede Trust's narrow claim that DHSC had not operated its public sector equality duty adequately. This does not mean that the appointments in question were made unlawfully, or that the Government acted in any other way unlawfully. The ruling is clear that they did not. The ruling also questions GLP's standing to bring this (or similar) claims, and its founding articles as a company.
When reading the GLP article quoted in full above, I can't locate any finding in the judgement that the Prime Minister, whatever else anyone thinks of him, "broke the law", or adopted an "unlawful process" in relation to any of the appointments in question. In fact the Court was clear - in para 135 - that the opposite was the case.
Not many cases of this type are a clear "victory" or "defeat" because there are usually several grounds, and often more than one claimant (often roped in to buttress standing). Because of that, few if any judicial review outcomes represent stark outcomes, but this is as stark a finding against a claimant as I've seen recently.
As ever, these are my personal views and not those of my employer.
To quote para 126 of the judgement verbatim:
126. The collective effect of the conclusions set out during this judgment is that the claim brought by Good Law Project fails in its entirety. The claim by the Runnymede Trust fails on Grounds 1 and 3; it succeeds on Ground 2 only to the extent that the decisions on the process to be used when appointing to the positions of Interim Chair of NIHP in August 2020, and Director of Testing at NHSTT in September 2020 were made without compliance with the public sector equality duty.
The solitary finding against HMG here was the Runnymede Trust's narrow claim that DHSC had not operated its public sector equality duty adequately. This does not mean that the appointments in question were made unlawfully, or that the Government acted in any other way unlawfully. The ruling is clear that they did not. The ruling also questions GLP's standing to bring this (or similar) claims, and its founding articles as a company.
When reading the GLP article quoted in full above, I can't locate any finding in the judgement that the Prime Minister, whatever else anyone thinks of him, "broke the law", or adopted an "unlawful process" in relation to any of the appointments in question. In fact the Court was clear - in para 135 - that the opposite was the case.
Not many cases of this type are a clear "victory" or "defeat" because there are usually several grounds, and often more than one claimant (often roped in to buttress standing). Because of that, few if any judicial review outcomes represent stark outcomes, but this is as stark a finding against a claimant as I've seen recently.
As ever, these are my personal views and not those of my employer.
flatpopely
Prog Rock/Moderator
Paras. 55 - 59 don't make good reading for the GLP.
Enfield boy
pfm Member
The courts trying to "cancel" GLP?
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
The failure here seems at least partly to be due to a lack of standing on the part of the GLP to bring the case. It should be a matter of concern that decisions and actions of the government are not amenable to challenge by an organisation set up to challenge unreasonable acts of government bodies, unless that organisation has, in effect, a dog in the fight. It seems to slam the door on some challenges in future and that should bother us. If only people likely to have been in the frame for these appointments would have had standing to challenge them, that does seem to make cronyism a little bit easier to get away with.
Tim Jones
pfm Member
It isn't the case that only people likely to have been in the frame for the appointments would have had standing to challenge them; although that would depend on the grounds of such a challenge. "Standing" has a wider application than that - which is why a single claim by the Runnymede Trust was upheld. The concern to the judges in the case, as I'm sure you've read in the sections cited above, was that GLP have tried to establish themselves on such a comprehensive basis that they claim standing to challenge any public authority on almost anything.
Standing, however, was not the only factor here, as demonstrated by the many failings of fact and evidence by the claimants.
Speaking personally, I think it should be a matter of concern that GLP have taken to wildly misrepresenting their outcomes in these actions to the people who are paying for them.
Tim Jones
pfm Member
They raised £388,000 from members of the public, including people here, to bring a case which had little legal merit but which was fuelled by this kind of rhetoric:
The findings of the Court today included paragraphs such as this:
95. However, considering the circumstances in the round, it is not possible to leap from such common features to the conclusion the Claimants contend for: that each appointment was made in pursuance of (for example) policies or practices that appointment was to be made without open competition, that only persons known to decision makers or politicians could be appointed, or that no remuneration would be offered. As to the open competition submission, the process applied to Baroness Harding's appointment in May 2020 was similar to that applied for the appointment of Ms Bingham. All three appointments made at that time (including the appointment of Lord Deighton) were made in response to urgent need. That is sufficient to explain (and in our view better explains) why a process of advertisement and response was not followed. The point is not whether an advertisement-led process could have been conducted quickly. The point is only whether what happened in these circumstances evidences something recognisable as a practice rather than being indicative only of the decisions made on the occasions in hand. The same point applies to Mr Coupe's appointment. A replacement for the existing Director of Testing had to be identified quickly. What happened is properly explained by that imperative. There is no evidence from which we can infer the existence of the practice the Claimants assert. The Claimants' next point is the requirement for personal or political connections with the decision-maker. The evidence provides no support for this at all. Baroness Harding had previous relevant experience of senior positions in large retail businesses and in the NHS. Mr Coupe had vast experience of managing complex public-facing organisations. Moreover, senior civil servants were involved, at least in the May 2020 decision to appoint Baroness Harding and Mr Coupe's appointment in September 2020. The Claimants' case requires their complicity in decisions that only placemen be appointed. There is simply no evidence at all to support such a claim. The last practice the Claimants allege is that the appointments be unpaid. The evidence we have is that both Baroness Harding and Mr Coupe declined payment. We accept this evidence. There was no policy or practice that only those able to work at their own expense would be appointed.
GLP have then spent much of the day claiming to their many donors (and Tony, I infer that you are one) that they have "won" - something which is obviously false. If there is "truth-twisting" going on, it wasn't on the defendants' part in this case.
The findings of the Court today included paragraphs such as this:
95. However, considering the circumstances in the round, it is not possible to leap from such common features to the conclusion the Claimants contend for: that each appointment was made in pursuance of (for example) policies or practices that appointment was to be made without open competition, that only persons known to decision makers or politicians could be appointed, or that no remuneration would be offered. As to the open competition submission, the process applied to Baroness Harding's appointment in May 2020 was similar to that applied for the appointment of Ms Bingham. All three appointments made at that time (including the appointment of Lord Deighton) were made in response to urgent need. That is sufficient to explain (and in our view better explains) why a process of advertisement and response was not followed. The point is not whether an advertisement-led process could have been conducted quickly. The point is only whether what happened in these circumstances evidences something recognisable as a practice rather than being indicative only of the decisions made on the occasions in hand. The same point applies to Mr Coupe's appointment. A replacement for the existing Director of Testing had to be identified quickly. What happened is properly explained by that imperative. There is no evidence from which we can infer the existence of the practice the Claimants assert. The Claimants' next point is the requirement for personal or political connections with the decision-maker. The evidence provides no support for this at all. Baroness Harding had previous relevant experience of senior positions in large retail businesses and in the NHS. Mr Coupe had vast experience of managing complex public-facing organisations. Moreover, senior civil servants were involved, at least in the May 2020 decision to appoint Baroness Harding and Mr Coupe's appointment in September 2020. The Claimants' case requires their complicity in decisions that only placemen be appointed. There is simply no evidence at all to support such a claim. The last practice the Claimants allege is that the appointments be unpaid. The evidence we have is that both Baroness Harding and Mr Coupe declined payment. We accept this evidence. There was no policy or practice that only those able to work at their own expense would be appointed.
GLP have then spent much of the day claiming to their many donors (and Tony, I infer that you are one) that they have "won" - something which is obviously false. If there is "truth-twisting" going on, it wasn't on the defendants' part in this case.
TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
You have to ask who is so keen to discredit and or bankrupt them by throwing colossal sums of public money at court hearings they have brought against the government.
matthewr
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
matthewr
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
Um, the government?
droodzilla
pfm Member
Thanks. Seems fair, and no-one can accuse DAG of being pro-government.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Yes, I only got to read part of the thread (not a Twitter user and it blocks scrolling after a few pages) but his criticism seemed fair. On balance, we do need campaigning organisations with the sort of legal chops the GLP can muster, but they need to be careful not to undermine their credibility, either by overstating their successes, or by tilting at too many windmills.
Tony L
Administrator
Agreed. We have not had such a disgustingly corrupt, thieving, incompetent and authoritarian government in my lifetime so the temptation is to support anything and everything that can push back against it. I hope GLP takes this widespread criticism on board as without anything of note occurring anywhere in our official political opposition circles we are just sinking ever further into a Trumpian hell by the week. We desperately need GLP and their ilk as we literally have nothing else to stop this descent into unaccountable right-wing authoritarianism.