Good Law Project [unofficial]https://write.tchncs.de/~/GoodLawProjectUnofficial@writeworks.uk/atom.xml2022-08-27T11:39:45.972745+00:00<![CDATA[We’re planning to sue Ofgem over their price cap announcement]]>https://writeworks.uk/~/GoodLawProjectUnofficial/We’re%20planning%20to%20sue%20Ofgem%20over%20their%20price%20cap%20announcement/2022-08-27T11:39:45.972745+00:00Good Law Project [unofficial]https://writeworks.uk/@/goodlawproject/2022-08-27T11:39:45.972745+00:00<![CDATA[<p dir="auto">We’re planning to sue Ofgem over their price cap announcement. Here’s how & why 🧵(1/9)</p>
<p dir="auto">Today’s Ofgem announcement will push millions of people into poverty this winter.</p>
<p dir="auto">💰The average household bill will go up by £1,578, an 80 percent increase from the current cap. (2/9)</p>
<p dir="auto">We think Ofgem can and should be doing more to protect people - especially the most vulnerable. (3/9)</p>
<p dir="auto">Before raising the cap, we believe Ofgem is legally required to:<br>
1⃣ provide evidence it has carried out a proper impact assessment<br>
2⃣ consider appropriate mitigation measures for the most vulnerable, including a lower social tariff. (4/9)</p>
<p dir="auto">In July, we wrote to Ofgem to express our concern about its decision-making. We asked it to provide proof of its impact assessments. It failed to produce any such evidence. (5/9)</p>
<p dir="auto">Last week we put the regulator on notice of formal legal action if it failed to uphold its duties. Today’s announcement provides no indication that an impact assessment has been carried out. (6/9)</p>
<p dir="auto">⚖️So, we’re planning to put the question before the High Court, and ask for a fast-tracked timeline to reflect the urgency of this crisis. (7/9)</p>
<p dir="auto">Join the movement and stay up to date with our work, including this challenge, here⬇️ (8/9)</p>
<p dir="auto"><a href="https://glplive.org/kbt" rel="noopener noreferrer"><img src="https://assets.nationbuilder.com/glp/pages/13/meta_images/original/glp_logo_large.png?1618396668" alt=""></a></p>
<p dir="auto"><a href="https://glplive.org/kbt" rel="noopener noreferrer"><strong>We use the law for a better world</strong>Hear more from Good Law Project. You can subscribe to receive their email updates here</a> https://glplive.org/kbt</p>
<p dir="auto">We’re bringing this alongside <a href="https://twitter.com/FuelPovAction" rel="noopener noreferrer">@FuelPovAction</a> and the Highlands & Islands Housing Associations Affordable Warmth Group🤝(9/9)</p>
]]><![CDATA[Tory Government Bullied Safety Watchdog over PPE Supplied by ‘VIPs’ (Tory donors)]]>https://writeworks.uk/~/GoodLawProjectUnofficial/tory-government-bullied-safety-watchdog-over-ppe-supplied-by-vi-ps-tory-donors/2021-12-22T15:33:15.340721+00:00Good Law Project [unofficial]https://writeworks.uk/@/goodlawproject/2021-12-22T15:33:15.340721+00:00<![CDATA[<p dir="auto">PPE supplied by high profile Tory donors the ‘VIP Lane’ has repeatedly been cleared for use by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), overruling concerns of the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) that it <em><strong>is not fit for purpose</strong></em>.</p>
<p dir="auto">Good Law Project challenged the award of £108m of PPE contracts to Clandeboye, a confectionery wholesaler. Clandeboye does not appear on the <a href="https://goodlawproject.org/50-companies/" rel="noopener noreferrer">DHSC’s list of VIPs</a> but Government’s <a href="https://glplive.org/clandeboye-govt-doc" rel="noopener noreferrer">internal documents</a> tell a different story.</p>
<p dir="auto">What DHSC <a href="https://glplive.org/1305-d-skele" rel="noopener noreferrer">told</a> the High Court was that: “Clandeboye answered the call to arms by making a viable offer and performing its contracts” and had been “approved in testing upon arrival”.</p>
<p dir="auto">However, emails obtained by the BBC show the [HSE] saying:</p>
<blockquote dir="auto">
<p dir="auto"><em>“The outer packaging for these aprons <strong>indicates that they are fluid repellent gowns, which they are not</strong>… they are <strong>not</strong> Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and <strong>do not meet the requirements</strong> of the Personal Protective Equipment Regulations (EU) 2016/425.”</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto"><strong>Nevertheless, after months of email correspondence the DHSC issued a notice authorising their use.</strong></p>
<p dir="auto">The BBC’s report – which you can watch <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0012ljx/spotlight-14122021" rel="noopener noreferrer">here</a> – also shows that large quantities of <strong>Clandeboye’s aprons were offloaded on ebay</strong> and other auctioneers <strong>for a tiny fraction of the price paid</strong> by DHSC.</p>
<p dir="auto">Good Law Project has <a href="https://glplive.org/1312-letter" rel="noopener noreferrer">written</a> asking Government to explain how it has adhered to its duties of candour and not to mislead the High Court.</p>
<p dir="auto">This is <em><strong>not the first occasion on which DHSC has put the HSE under pressure to ‘clear’ for use PPE</strong></em> supplied by VIPs under contracts Good Law Project is challenging.</p>
<p dir="auto">Good Law Project is also challenging the award of <em><strong>£349 million of PPE contracts to “VIP” Crisp <u>Websites</u> Limited</strong></em>, trading as “Pestfix”, a then <em><strong>tiny</strong></em> pest control specialist. </p>
<p dir="auto"><a href="https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1327561288013279232?s=20" rel="noopener noreferrer">Emails</a> after those proceedings were issued show the HSE complaining that the DHSC was “bombarding” it with requests to provide a statement that was “not factually accurate”. The <em><strong>HSE was sufficiently concerned that it sought legal advice</strong></em> on its position. An email Government contractor talks of there being “quite a bit of ‘political’ pressure to get Pestfix products through the QA [Quality Assurance] process.”</p>
<h4 dir="auto">And then there is P14 Medical</h4>
<p dir="auto">P14 Medical was <strong>run by ex-Tory Councillor Steve Dechan</strong> and <em><strong>won a £116m contract</strong></em> to supply face shields <em><strong>through the Government’s VIP lane</strong></em>. The contract received extensive coverage in the national press. </p>
<p dir="auto"><a href="https://glplive.org/p14-foi" rel="noopener noreferrer">Emails</a> obtained by Good Law Project show that DHSC stepped in to approve the face shields for use <em><strong>despite the HSE warning in September 2020 that key documentation and certification was missing</strong></em>.</p>
<p dir="auto">The Times <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/420-per-visor-the-price-of-ministers-ppe-panic-08m26r3pl" rel="noopener noreferrer">reported</a> that the HSE raised concerns about whether face shields supplied by P14 Medical met required standards. <strong>HSE wrote to officials saying the shields <em>“cannot enter the NHS supply chain”</em></strong> because of “inconsistencies” in the documentation P14 had supplied. These included certificates that were:</p>
<ul dir="auto">
<li dir="auto">“Out of date”</li>
<li dir="auto">Applied to different companies and products such as:
<ul dir="auto">
<li dir="auto">“packaging firm”</li>
<li dir="auto">“beauty products“</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li dir="auto">HSE said the testing laboratory used to verify the safety of the shields was <em><strong>“not an accredited laboratory”</strong></em> either’.</li>
</ul>
<p dir="auto">Despite those concerns, the <em><strong>DHSC overruled the HSE and approved the face shields</strong></em> for use in February of this year.</p>
<p dir="auto">A spokesperson for P14 Medical said they are: “an expert company that has been in medical supplies for eight years including PPE that managed to deliver on a big contract that ‘big companies’ could not. They provided the equipment to the government when it was needed, on time and in accordance with the specified requirements”.</p>
<p dir="auto">A HSE spokesperson said:</p>
<blockquote dir="auto">
<p dir="auto"><em>“HSE’s round-the-clock advice and assurance to health services at the height of PPE supply shortages was rooted in science and experience, not just the regulations. It was as a result of our checks that we caught a lot of PPE that wasn’t safe and wouldn’t have protected people” and denied that it had been put under political pressure.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto"><strong>DHSC did not respond to requests for comment.</strong></p>
<p dir="auto">There are serious questions to answer:</p>
<ul dir="auto">
<li dir="auto">Why has DHSC overruled the HSE to get hundreds of millions of pounds of PPE supplied by high profile VIPs, including those whose contracts are being challenged in court, into the supply chain?</li>
<li dir="auto">Are they <em><strong>putting politics before public health?</strong></em></li>
</ul>
<p dir="auto"><a href="https://goodlawproject.org/update/government-bullied-watchdog-vips/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Copy of article at The Good Law Project website</a>.</p>
<p dir="auto">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 <a href="https://glplive.org/dd-ppe-1412" rel="noopener noreferrer">here</a>.</p>
]]><![CDATA[Time to Stop the Rot]]>https://writeworks.uk/~/GoodLawProjectUnofficial/time-to-stop-the-rot/2021-11-14T13:22:52.590890+00:00Good Law Project [unofficial]https://writeworks.uk/@/goodlawproject/2021-11-14T13:22:52.590890+00:00<![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a href="https://goodlawproject.org/news/time-to-stop-the-rot" rel="noopener noreferrer">Copy of article at Good Law Project</a></p>
<p dir="auto">The UK may be the <strong>only democracy in the world without a written constitution</strong> – a ‘higher’ law or code to which all others must conform.</p>
<p dir="auto">Until now, we haven’t seen the need for binding rules:</p>
<ul dir="auto">
<li dir="auto">We’ve relied on self-restraint.</li>
<li dir="auto">We’ve trusted politicians to behave themselves.</li>
<li dir="auto">We’ve assumed that only ‘good chaps’ – as Lord Hennessy memorably put it – will rise to high office.</li>
<li dir="auto">And those good chaps won’t need to be told how to behave. Being good chaps, they will know what the rules are and they will obey them.</li>
</ul>
<h4 dir="auto">But what happens if the people running the show are <strong><em>not</em></strong> good chaps?</h4>
<p dir="auto">What you get is what we have.</p>
<ul dir="auto">
<li dir="auto"><a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/owen-paterson-standards-watchdog-bullying-b1951241.html" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bullying</a> of regulators.</li>
<li dir="auto"><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/08/tories-cultural-institutions-war-no-10-museums-decolonisation?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stacking</a> of boards.</li>
<li dir="auto"><a href="https://www.ft.com/content/71bdca31-285a-48ac-b2a8-89946372b22c" rel="noopener noreferrer">Challenges</a> to the independence of the media.</li>
<li dir="auto"><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/05/civil-liberties-groups-criticise-priti-patels-plan-to-criminalise-protest" rel="noopener noreferrer">Criminalising</a> civil protest.</li>
<li dir="auto"><a href="https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/upgrading-our-democracy/voter-id/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Restricting</a> the right to vote.</li>
<li dir="auto"><a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tory-rebellion-the-21-conservative-mps-who-will-have-the-whip-withdrawn-after-voting-against-the-government-a4228391.html" rel="noopener noreferrer">Attacking</a> the independence of MPs.</li>
<li dir="auto"><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/judicial-review-trends-and-forecasts-2021-accountability-and-the-constitution" rel="noopener noreferrer">Challenging</a> the judiciary, <em><strong><a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dominic-raab-cant-make-up-the-law-as-he-goes-along-5swrrmsjg" rel="noopener noreferrer">curtailing</a> its powers and <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dominic-raab-human-rights-act-b1939870.html" rel="noopener noreferrer">reversing</a> its decisions</strong></em>.</li>
<li dir="auto"><em><strong>Abandoning the Convention on <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/16/dominic-raab-sets-plans-overhaul-human-rights-act-reform-judicial/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Human Rights</a></strong></em> and Fundamental Freedoms.</li>
<li dir="auto">There are well-sourced rumours of <strong>political interference in operational policing</strong> decisions.</li>
<li dir="auto">Let us not forget, we have a Prime Minister who <em><strong>unlawfully <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/24/boris-johnsons-suspension-of-parliament-unlawful-supreme-court-rules-prorogue" rel="noopener noreferrer">suspended</a> Parliament</strong></em>.</li>
</ul>
<p dir="auto"><strong>All of this is before we start on the tidal wave of sleaze engulfing the Government:</strong></p>
<ul dir="auto">
<li dir="auto"><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/18/uk-government-told-reveal-firms-given-vip-covid-contracts-ppe" rel="noopener noreferrer">VIP</a> lanes for the politically connected</li>
<li dir="auto">Vast <a href="https://goodlawproject.org/update/patel-mirza-and-the-middlemen/" rel="noopener noreferrer">payments</a> to politically connected middle-men</li>
<li dir="auto">Procurement <em><strong><a href="https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Initial-learning-from-the-governments-response-to-the-COVID-19-pandemic.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer">fraud</a> going uninvestigated</strong></em></li>
<li dir="auto"><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/26/matt-hancock-former-neighbour-won-covid-test-kit-contract-after-whatsapp-message" rel="noopener noreferrer">Failures</a> to declare conflicts of interest by MPs</li>
<li dir="auto">The <em><strong><a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-covid-contracts-court-b1813003.html" rel="noopener noreferrer">misleading</a> of Parliament</strong></em> by the Prime Minister.</li>
</ul>
<p dir="auto">Sitting above all of this is a set of problems, arising not so much from how some politicians behave but from how the world now is. Our politics feels more divided. We seem to have less in common, and the idea we all want the same things for the country feels less secure.</p>
<h4 dir="auto">The truth is, <em><strong>the world our rules were made for no longer exists</strong></em>.</h4>
<p dir="auto">What does this mean for the idea that Parliament is supreme – has absolute power?</p>
<ul dir="auto">
<li dir="auto">
<p dir="auto">Is this conception of democracy consistent with a first-past-the-post system that can, and often does, give <em><strong>unconstrained power to a Government with a minority</strong></em> of the popular vote? </p>
</li>
<li dir="auto">
<p dir="auto">And if <em><strong>MPs are <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/51c93ba3-4a59-4e88-92ed-3e152a896493" rel="noopener noreferrer">coerced</a> into voting with the Government</strong></em>, who gets to play the constitutional trump card of Parliamentary supremacy?</p>
</li>
<li dir="auto">
<p dir="auto"><em><strong><u>Are MPs accountable to voters, or the Executive?</u></strong></em></p>
</li>
</ul>
<p dir="auto"><strong>At the heart of all of this is a simple truth:</strong></p>
<p dir="auto">You don’t need a constitution to …</p>
<ul dir="auto">
<li dir="auto">Protect you against good chaps because they’re good chaps</li>
<li dir="auto">A constitution that <em><strong>can’t protect you against bad chaps is no constitution at all</strong></em></li>
</ul>
<p dir="auto">Meanwhile, what remains withers and weakens.</p>
<p dir="auto">What is left is less and less able to command public confidence.</p>
<p dir="auto">Trust in politics – and ultimately in democracy – is the victim.</p>
<p dir="auto">A responsible Government would respond with a process for a <strong>new British Bill of Rights</strong>. A smart Opposition would demand one.</p>
<p dir="auto">Website: <a href="https://goodlawproject.org" rel="noopener noreferrer"><strong>Good Law Project</strong></a></p>
<hr>
<p dir="auto">Good Law Project only exists thanks to donations from ordinary people across the UK. If you’re in a position to support our work, you can do so <a href="https://glplive.org/ukconst-rd-1111" rel="noopener noreferrer"><strong>here</strong></a>.</p>
<p dir="auto"><a href="https://goodlawproject.org/news/time-to-stop-the-rot" rel="noopener noreferrer">Copy of article at Good Law Project</a></p>
]]><![CDATA[What Happens Now?]]>https://writeworks.uk/~/GoodLawProjectUnofficial/what-happens-now/2021-06-13T22:22:21.841682+00:00Good Law Project [unofficial]https://writeworks.uk/@/goodlawproject/2021-06-13T22:22:21.841682+00:00<![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Yesterday’s High Court judgment that <strong>Michael Gove broke the law</strong> by handing a contract to his associates is vindication of what we have been saying for months: there is institutionalised cronyism at the heart of Government.</p>
<p dir="auto">Lots of you have quite rightly got in touch to ask: <strong>what are the consequences?</strong> What happens now?</p>
<p dir="auto">There will be real world impact. We know from people who work in Government that Good Law Project’s legal cases have caused those in power to think twice before they break the rules again. <strong><em>It shouldn’t take a tiny not-for-profit, crowdfunded by tens of thousands of people, to act as a watchdog against Government cronyism and law-breaking</em></strong>. But those in power have learned we’re watching and that we’re not afraid to act. </p>
<p dir="auto">In terms of criminality, that was not alleged in this case. But we know that in the case of <strong>PPE procurement, Government’s own Counter Fraud Function has <em>assessed a high risk of fraud</em></strong>. We have uncovered a case that we believe the <em><u>Serious Fraud Office should investigate</u></em> and we will make a referral to them. As always, we will keep you updated.</p>
<p dir="auto">For the Ministers involved, <strong>breaking the law should be a resigning matter or a sackable offence</strong>.</p>
<p dir="auto">But we know that Michael Gove or Matt Hancock won’t go and the two High Court rulings won’t force them to. <em>**That’s a huge problem for all of us who believe in standards in public life and the rule of law. **</em></p>
<p dir="auto">So whilst the law is an important check on Government’s misuse of power, it can’t be the only one. In order to truly turn the tide on this culture of impunity, we need to be more ambitious. We need to reach more of the public with our work, we need to be on the front page of every paper, we need to be speaking with our friends and families about what is happening at the heart of Government. Ultimately, it’s about building more power.</p>
<p dir="auto">It’s no easy task. But we’ve already shown what thousands of people can do when we’re all pulling together in the right direction. On that note, I wanted to share a personal thank you. This High Court victory is only possible thanks to you.</p>
<p dir="auto"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW1m_a6Rg_A" rel="noopener noreferrer"><img src="https://mcusercontent.com/a04999673229750da830ac1e4/images/97e57bf4-4c4d-a036-c018-fefb1d6a5480.png" alt=""></a></p>
<p dir="auto">Thank you,</p>
<p dir="auto">Jo Maugham<br>
Director of Good Law Project<br>
<strong><a href="https://goodlawproject.org" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://goodlawproject.org</a></strong></p>
<p dir="auto">Only with your support can we continue to hold the Government to account. If you are in a position to do so, <strong><a href="https://glplive.org/pf-win-ty-donate-rd" rel="noopener noreferrer">you can make a donation here</a></strong>.</p>
]]><![CDATA[Peerage, Barron Cruddas & 3/4 of a Million Pounds Donated to the Conservative Party ]]>https://writeworks.uk/~/GoodLawProjectUnofficial/peerage-barron-cruddas-3-4-of-a-million-pounds-donated-to-the-conservative-party/2021-06-12T12:26:14.962560+00:00Good Law Project [unofficial]https://writeworks.uk/@/goodlawproject/2021-06-12T12:26:14.962560+00:00<![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Peter – or Baron, as for now we must call him – Cruddas was once a Treasurer of the Conservative Party.</p>
<p dir="auto">In March 2012 the Sunday Times published a rather mean piece about him which included the claim that (as the Court put it):</p>
<p dir="auto">“<em>in return for cash donations to the Conservative Party, [he] <strong>corruptly offered</strong> for sale the opportunity to influence government policy and gain unfair advantage through secret meetings with the Prime Minister and other senior ministers</em>.”</p>
<p dir="auto">He sued the Sunday Times for defamation and, to be fair to him, he won but the Court of Appeal also said the claim above was substantially true. As a candidate for a great honour you would think he was, well, you would think he was an odd one.</p>
<p dir="auto">On the other hand, <em>he is Very Rich</em>. And he has given quite a lot of <strong>money to the Conservative Party: over £3m</strong>.</p>
<blockquote dir="auto">
<p dir="auto">He <strong>gave a quarter of a million quid</strong> to them on 10 January 2020 and <em><strong>a few weeks later it emerged he’d been nominated as a Baron by Boris Johnson</strong></em>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">He was crowned, or whatever happens to them, ‘Baron’ Cruddas on 2 February 2021 and <strong>a few days later, on 5 February 2021, he gave the Tories <em>another half a million</em></strong>. We’re not saying any of this was pre-arranged – there’s no evidence of that and <em><u>buying and selling peerages is a crime</u></em> – but the timing of it all is, well, it is odd.</p>
<p dir="auto">Given his past record, the <strong>House of Lords Appointments Commission thought <em>he wasn’t</em> the kind of man we should be giving a peerage to</strong>. And it <em>advised Boris Johnson not to make him a Baron</em>. But Boris did anyway – <em><strong>making history by ignoring the Appointments Commission for the first time ever</strong></em>.</p>
<p dir="auto">We don’t only think it is odd. <strong>We also think it is unlawful</strong>. We think a fair-minded and informed observer, presented with the facts of the matter, would conclude that there was a real possibility or danger of bias in the Defendant’s decision making. We also think that the <strong>Prime Minister took legally irrelevant considerations – past donations and the prospect of future donations – into account in making him a Baron</strong>.</p>
<p dir="auto">And so we’re suing. We’ve instructed Bindmans LLP, Dan Squires QC and Alice Irving. You can read our letter <a href="https://glplive.org/1106-pap" rel="noopener noreferrer">here</a>.</p>
<p dir="auto">Make no mistake, we intend to issue proceedings. But this time, we’re not setting up a crowdfunder. What we’d really like you to do instead is (1) <a href="https://glplive.org/peerages-petition-email" rel="noopener noreferrer">sign our petition</a> calling for him to be stripped of his peerage and (2) share this update with your friends and family.</p>
<blockquote dir="auto">
<p dir="auto"><strong><a href="https://glplive.org/cruddas-sharer-fb" title="Share on Facebook" rel="noopener noreferrer">Share on Facebook</a></strong> – or – <strong><a href="https://glplive.org/cruddas-sharer-tw" title="Share on Twitter" rel="noopener noreferrer">Share on Twitter</a></strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Thank you,</p>
<p dir="auto">Jo Maugham<br>
Director of Good Law Project<br>
<strong><a href="https://goodlawproject.org" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://goodlawproject.org</a></strong></p>
<p dir="auto">Only with your support can we continue to hold the Government to account. If you are in a position to do so, <strong><a href="https://glplive.org/cruddas-donate-rd" rel="noopener noreferrer">you can make a donation here</a></strong>.</p>
]]><![CDATA[Another of Boris Johnson's Cabinet Members Have Broken the Law as Found by the High Court]]>https://writeworks.uk/~/GoodLawProjectUnofficial/another-of-boris-johnson's-cabinet-members-have-broken-the-law-as-found-by-the-high-court/2021-06-09T22:05:56.976131+00:00Good Law Project [unofficial]https://writeworks.uk/@/goodlawproject/2021-06-09T22:05:56.976131+00:00<![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>Michael Gove <em>broke the law by</em> giving a contract to a communications agency run by long time associates of him and Dominic Cummings, the High Court has <a href="https://glplive.org/pf-judgment" rel="noopener noreferrer">decided</a></strong>.</p>
<p dir="auto">The Court found that the decision to award the £560,000 contract to Public First was tainted by “apparent bias” and <strong>was unlawful</strong>. The Court found that Gove’s:</p>
<blockquote dir="auto">
<p dir="auto"><em>“<strong>failure to consider any other research agency</strong>… would lead a fair minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility, or a real danger, that <strong>the decision maker was biased</strong>” (paragraph 168).</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Michael Gove had claimed that the work was such that only Public First could carry it out. However, the <em>High Court rejected that version of events</em>. <strong>The simple truth, it held, was that the Cabinet Office didn’t even consider whether anyone else should have the contract</strong>.</p>
<p dir="auto">The decision vindicates Good Law Project’s long-running characterisation of pandemic procurement as <em><strong>“institutionalised cronyism”</strong></em>.</p>
<p dir="auto">Emails released in the case also showed that both <strong><a href="https://glplive.org/0906-cdl" rel="noopener noreferrer">Michael Gove and Number 10</a> were keen that Public First (and Hanbury) <em>should win no-tender polling contracts</em></strong>. Good Law Project’s judicial review of the decision to award a contract to Hanbury will be heard on 26 July.</p>
<p dir="auto">The decision is the second in our long slate of crowdfunded procurement judicial reviews – and we have succeeded in both.</p>
<h5 dir="auto">Two Cabinet Ministers – Michael Gove and Matt Hancock – have now been found to <em>have broken the law</em>.</h5>
<p dir="auto">Following the <a href="https://goodlawproject.org/update/the-judgment-is-in/" rel="noopener noreferrer">first decision</a>, Good Law Project <a href="https://rebrand.ly/letter-glp-mh" rel="noopener noreferrer">wrote to Matt Hancock</a> making proposals to improve procurement and get better value for money for taxpayers. <strong>We offered, if that invitation was accepted, to drop our further procurement challenges to save public money. <em>Mr Hancock did not respond</em></strong>. Since that letter, huge further sums in public money have been wasted in fruitless defence of unlawful conduct.</p>
<p dir="auto">Good Law Project repeats its invitation to the Government to learn lessons – and to stop wasting more public money staving off political embarrassment.</p>
<p dir="auto">Good Law Project is grateful to its legal team of Jason Coppel QC and Patrick Halliday of 11KBW Chambers, instructed by Rook Irwin Sweeney. And of course to the tens of thousands of people whose financial contributions make litigation like this possible.</p>
<p dir="auto">We are the arrow but you draw the bow.</p>
<p dir="auto">Thank you,</p>
<p dir="auto">Jo Maugham<br>
Director of Good Law Project<br>
<strong><a href="https://goodlawproject.org" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://goodlawproject.org</a></strong></p>
<p dir="auto">Only with your support can we continue to hold the Government to account. If you are in a position to do so, <strong><a href="https://glplive.org/donate-pf-win" rel="noopener noreferrer">you can make a donation here</a></strong>.</p>
]]><![CDATA[We Are Being Targeted by Boris Johnson's Ministers]]>https://writeworks.uk/~/GoodLawProjectUnofficial/we-are-being-targeted-by-boris-johnson's-ministers/2021-06-08T23:44:15.522823+00:00Good Law Project [unofficial]https://writeworks.uk/@/goodlawproject/2021-06-08T23:44:15.522823+00:00<![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Over the weekend the Mail on Sunday reported, quite explicitly, that our founder, Jo Maugham, is being <em><strong>“targeted by Ministers”</strong></em>. What is suggested is that Good Law Project is somehow “abusing” crowdfunding. But <strong>no evidence is given</strong> in support of that contention.</p>
<h5 dir="auto">And it is false.</h5>
<p dir="auto">There is a need for a stronger ethical framework for crowdfunding. And Jo has led the way in calling for it: see, for example, <a href="https://goodlawproject.us15.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a04999673229750da830ac1e4&id=2658568e0b&e=aab799eac8" rel="noopener noreferrer">here</a> and <a href="https://goodlawproject.us15.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a04999673229750da830ac1e4&id=9e8e1fc37a&e=aab799eac8" rel="noopener noreferrer">here</a>. In the meantime, we continue to strive for the highest ethical values. And we believe we meet them.</p>
<p dir="auto">The truth is, the attack is nothing to do with our conduct. It is <strong>a transparent and deceitful attempt by Government to target one of its most effective critics</strong>. And to close down the most effective route to exposing its <em>[Tory government’s]</em> disregard for the law.</p>
<p dir="auto">We will not be silenced. Please share the news of Government’s latest attempts to stymie Good Law Project’s work so that everyone knows what we are up against:</p>
<h3 dir="auto"><strong><a href="https://glplive.org/fb-share-0706" title="Share on Facebook" rel="noopener noreferrer">Share on Facebook</a></strong> – or – <strong><a href="https://glplive.org/tw-sharer-0706" title="Share on Twitter" rel="noopener noreferrer">Share on Twitter</a></strong></h3>
<p dir="auto">The <em><strong>Courts have repeatedly complimented us for our conduct</strong></em>. In our challenge over the Hanbury contract handed to associates of Dominic Cummings, the Judge said she was satisfied that we are managing our cases and funds in an appropriate way. In another hearing the Judge said:</p>
<blockquote dir="auto">
<p dir="auto"><em>“All citizens are likely to have an interest in whether or not the procurement on the part of the government is done using good governance procedures and integrity. And therefore there is a real wider public interest that has been represented by the claimant group…</em>”</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">In our Unpublished Contracts case, the Judge said: we had:</p>
<blockquote dir="auto">
<p dir="auto">“<em><strong>a sincere interest, and some expertise, in scrutinising government conduct in this area</strong>. There is no allegation (and no evidence) that it is seeking to use the public procurement regime as a tool for challenging decisions which it opposes for other reasons.”</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Over the last 18 months we have used crowdfunding to <strong>reveal the shady award of PPE contracts to friends of Tories and to reverse Johnson’s unlawful attempt to mislead the Queen and cancel Parliament</strong>. We have also instructed lawyers to examine whether Johnson’s decision to award a peerage to Peter Cruddas - a decision which was followed by a donation of £500,000 by Lord Cruddas to the Conservative party - was unlawful. </p>
<p dir="auto">But, <em><strong>like all autocrats, Johnson hates scrutiny</strong></em> and wants to put himself beyond challenge.</p>
<p dir="auto">His Government:</p>
<ul dir="auto">
<li dir="auto">Has decimated legal aid</li>
<li dir="auto">Is advancing reforms to judicial review which would <em><strong>undermine the rule of law</strong></em> and crucial principles of fairness and accountability</li>
<li dir="auto">Is <em><strong>forcing out officials tasked with upholding standards</strong></em>. </li>
</ul>
<p dir="auto">Crowdfunding is the only route by which normal people can challenge the Government’s disregard for the law. Close it down and judicial review becomes a tool only the wealthy can wield.</p>
<p dir="auto">Government could stop us crowdfunding tomorrow - all it needs is to acquire some basic regard for the law. Meanwhile, we will continue, fearlessly, to press for truth and accountability.</p>
<p dir="auto">Thank you, </p>
<p dir="auto">Gemma Abbott,</p>
<p dir="auto">Legal Director</p>
<p dir="auto"><strong><a href="https://goodlawproject.org" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://goodlawproject.org</a></strong></p>
<p dir="auto">Only with your support can we continue to <strong><em>hold the Government to account</em></strong>. If you are in a position to do so, <strong><a href="https://glplive.org/crowdfunding-donate-rd" rel="noopener noreferrer">you can make a donation here</a></strong>.</p>
]]><![CDATA[This is Shocking ...]]>https://writeworks.uk/~/GoodLawProjectUnofficial/this-is-shocking/2021-06-01T10:43:59.591737+00:00Good Law Project [unofficial]https://writeworks.uk/@/goodlawproject/2021-06-01T10:43:59.591737+00:00<![CDATA[<ol dir="auto">
<li dir="auto">Government gets a <em>bona fide PPE</em> offer from a would be supplier.</li>
<li dir="auto">The company has sourced the PPE, submitted a bid and <em><u>passed through the technical checks</u></em>.</li>
<li dir="auto">They’re close to signing on the dotted line. But …</li>
</ol>
<p dir="auto"><em><strong>But at the eleventh hour they get dropped</strong></em>. Instead, Government buys the same thing from someone else. <em><u>Someone who came in later but with close connections to Cabinet Ministers</u></em> - and <strong>at an eye watering price</strong>.</p>
<p dir="auto">This is a story we have heard, with close variants, <strong>again and again</strong>. But Government secrecy means we haven’t been able to corroborate it - until now.</p>
<p dir="auto">The bare facts of what Good Law Project has learned about two <strong>contracts awarded to Pharmaceuticals Direct Limited (PDL) are <em>extraordinary</em></strong>. We hold documents evidencing that:</p>
<ul dir="auto">
<li dir="auto">Priti Patel and Boris Johnson’s adviser Munira Mirza <em>pushed the case</em> of two middlemen for PDL with Cabinet Office;</li>
<li dir="auto">the first middleman was Samir Jassal. He is a <em>Conservative councillor</em> who has been photographed with Boris Johnson (and May and Cameron) and who has personal links to Priti Patel and a string of other high profile Conservative politicians;</li>
<li dir="auto">the second middleman was Surbjit Shergill. A <em><strong>company he owned went from £200 to almost £10m in value</strong></em> in the year of the pandemic. Documents leaked to Good Law Project suggest he billed PDL over £16m for his services;</li>
<li dir="auto">the first contract, for IIR face masks, was <strong>signed only six days after a direct intervention from <em>Priti Patel</em></strong> – and for a price materially above the average price;</li>
<li dir="auto">the second contract, for ‘Meixin 2016V’ FFP3 face masks, was concluded on 7 July - and only after officials from the political hub of PPE procurement, the <em><strong>Cabinet Office, overruled objections from DHSC that it was</strong></em> <strong>_<u>overpriced by £50m</u></strong>_;</li>
<li dir="auto">another bidder had passed technical assurance – and had even been sent a contract – to supply Meixin 2016Vs at the same time and in meaningfully the same quantity. On 2 July, they <em><u>were told Government had already bought enough of that type of mask</u></em>. <em><strong>Five days later Government spent over £100m buying Meixin 2016Vs from PDL</strong></em>.</li>
</ul>
<p dir="auto">Good Law Project has published a <a href="https://glplive.org/pdl-long-read" rel="noopener noreferrer">long read</a> on how a number of <strong>politicians and advisors intervened in PDL’s bid for a lucrative contract</strong>. We link to all the key documents. And there is more to come. All involved say they did nothing wrong - and their responses can be found in the long read. We think the evidence we have published speaks for itself.</p>
<p dir="auto">This story will be published more widely tomorrow but we wanted to make sure those on our mailing list, including you, received it first. If you want to share this breaking story with your friends and family, you can do so below:</p>
<p dir="auto"><strong><a href="https://glplive.org/pdl-fb-share" title="Share on Facebook" rel="noopener noreferrer">Share on Facebook</a></strong> - and/or - <strong><a href="https://glplive.org/pdl-tw-share" title="Share on Twitter" rel="noopener noreferrer">Share on Twitter</a></strong></p>
<p dir="auto">We are taking legal action over the award of contracts to PDL. If you are in a position to do so, you can <strong><a href="https://glplive.org/pdl-cj-2805" rel="noopener noreferrer">donate here</a></strong>.</p>
<p dir="auto">Thank you, </p>
<p dir="auto">Jo Maugham<br>
Director of Good Law Project<br>
<strong><a href="https://goodlawproject.org" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://goodlawproject.org</a></strong></p>
<p dir="auto">Only with your support can we continue to hold the Government to account. If you are in a position to do so, <strong><a href="https://glplive.org/pdl-donate-rd-2805" rel="noopener noreferrer">you can make a donation here.</a></strong></p>
]]><![CDATA[We Will Keep Going]]>https://writeworks.uk/~/GoodLawProjectUnofficial/we-will-keep-going/2021-05-29T12:41:39.849579+00:00Good Law Project [unofficial]https://writeworks.uk/@/goodlawproject/2021-05-29T12:41:39.849579+00:00<![CDATA[<p dir="auto">What expectations should you have of a campaigner who tells you <strong>he believes there is corruption at the heart of Government</strong>?</p>
<p dir="auto">What should the campaigner do if he hears from an insider that a formal response to judicial review proceedings is <strong>“<em>a work of fiction Government has created</em>”</strong>? Should he close his ears? And if he is sent documents supporting that proposition, what then? What should he do if those documents show <strong>Ministers acting in ways their own lawyers – and external lawyers after that – <em>told them was unlawful</em></strong>?</p>
<p dir="auto">The stakes are high:</p>
<ul dir="auto">
<li dir="auto">Large sums of public money</li>
<li dir="auto">A diminished but still precious pool of public trust in our institutions</li>
<li dir="auto">The integrity of judicial review proceedings.</li>
</ul>
<p dir="auto">Judicial review is <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/285368/Tsol_discharging_1_.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer">meant to be</a> a partnership between the courts and Government “<em>based on a common aim, namely the maintenance of the highest standards of public administration</em>.” The very rules governing how judicial review is conducted are shaped and conditioned by that central idea.</p>
<p dir="auto">In judicial review proceedings, Government is exempted from the onerous duties of disclosure that apply to all other litigants in civil litigation. The reason for the exemption is the high duty of “candour” that applies in judicial review. It <strong>imposes on Government a duty to put all of the relevant facts before the Court</strong>, <em><u>including (indeed especially) those facts that are harmful to the Government’s case</u></em>. The current system of judicial review simply cannot work if Government lawyers do not hold true to that idea, if they become gladiators rather than servants of public administration.</p>
<p dir="auto">In <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/may/25/good-law-projects-jolyon-maugham-they-see-us-pushing-back-hard" rel="noopener noreferrer">Tuesday’s Guardian profile</a> I explained how I had answered those questions in relation to the <em>Abingdon</em> case.</p>
<p dir="auto">The information that was leaked to me was shared with a senior journalist whom I trusted, on terms that protected my source. In the event, I left to that journalist the ethical and legal questions of what should (or should not) properly be published. I did so having taken and weighed legal advice. I did so not with an eye to protecting myself – but mindful of the promise I had made to those who fund the work we do.</p>
<p dir="auto">The Government’s lawyers responded with a series of furious letters culminating with this:<img src="https://mcusercontent.com/a04999673229750da830ac1e4/images/2314be49-9d82-a15c-0fff-fd0fb97b96e8.png" alt=""></p>
<p dir="auto">My lawyers responded thus:</p>
<p dir="auto"><img src="https://mcusercontent.com/a04999673229750da830ac1e4/images/081b0848-8f47-5019-c0da-48cf0f5bcb83.png" alt=""></p>
<p dir="auto">I do not know whether the GLD has referred me to the Bar Standards Board. But I did not self-refer because I believed that my actions were consistent with the trust and confidence the public should place in the Bar. I don’t want to mount a high horse – they have a tendency to get rather unruly – but that was the course of action I thought delivered on the promise I had made to our funders.</p>
<p dir="auto">What I do know – and you may think this speaks to its motivation – is that to the best of my knowledge (and I have asked) <strong>the Government never raised any complaint to or about the Daily Mail, the newspaper that actually published extracts from the Government’s documents</strong>. You might ask yourself (and I have certainly pondered this question):</p>
<blockquote dir="auto">
<p dir="auto"><strong>What might cause the Government to threaten a solitary lawyer but to choose not even to write to the Daily Mail?</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">This is far from the only, I believe, <em>wrongheaded attack on me by Government lawyers</em>. </p>
<p dir="auto">In a recent witness statement, supported by a statement of truth, a lawyer acting for the Secretary of State suggested that I had deliberately misled the court as to who was funding our <a href="https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/abingdon-health/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Abingdon case</a>. He had, so far as I can see, <em><strong>no evidential basis</strong></em> for doing so, indeed the allegation did not appear to be supported by a shred of evidence. He did not put the points to me in correspondence before swearing them in a public witness statement. And they lacked any remote foundation, as I explained in my <a href="https://glplive.org/1805-jm-ws" rel="noopener noreferrer">witness statement</a> in reply:</p>
<p dir="auto"><img src="https://mcusercontent.com/a04999673229750da830ac1e4/images/f594ab49-a5f0-88b9-d42a-e8c8d3f72960.png" alt=""></p>
<p dir="auto">It’s not really the point – whether this was an appropriate way for the Government to behave can’t be determined after the event – but <strong>the Judge accepted my evidence</strong>. Our note of her judgement records:</p>
<blockquote dir="auto">
<p dir="auto">“<em>I accept Mr Maugham’s evidence who has set out very carefully and fully the Claimant’s finances.</em>”</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Unfortunately, these are only examples of recent, I believe unfounded, attacks on my conduct by the Government. </p>
<p dir="auto">I think – and this is one of the reasons why I have not named the individual lawyer who wrote both the letter and the witness statement that I have cited above – that these incidents <strong>illustrate the extremely difficult position Government lawyers now find themselves in</strong>. <em><u>The devil is a Government with a diminishing attachment to the truth</u></em> and the deep blue sea the obligations which the lawyers acting for that Government have to the Court. Pity those trapped between the two.</p>
<h6 dir="auto">But what I want to say to those who support Good Law Project is this.</h6>
<p dir="auto">I have arranged my life – including giving up my practice at the Bar except for a few cases still in ‘run-off’ – to be able to do this <strong>work in a way that feels ethical to me</strong>. Where I make mistakes, and in life mistakes are inevitable, I hope I will have the courage to tell you so. But one of those mistakes will not be that I put my preference to avoid direct attack from Government ahead of delivering on the promise I have made to you about the work that Good Law Project will do. </p>
<blockquote dir="auto">
<p dir="auto"><strong>Until Government shows a serious interest in keeping its own house clean we will be brave in working to expose the truth.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Only with your support can we continue to hold the Government to account. If you are in a position to do so, <strong><a href="https://glplive.org/bsb-donate-2605" rel="noopener noreferrer">you can make a donation here</a></strong>.</p>
]]><![CDATA[The PPE/VIP Lane Hearing is Over]]>https://writeworks.uk/~/GoodLawProjectUnofficial/the-ppe-vip-lane-hearing-is-over/2021-05-25T17:59:34.484369+00:00Good Law Project [unofficial]https://writeworks.uk/@/goodlawproject/2021-05-25T17:59:34.484369+00:00<![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Our High Court hearing is now over. Over the course of five days we’ve heard how:</p>
<ul dir="auto">
<li dir="auto">Companies with <strong>political connections jumped the queue</strong> to win lucrative PPE deals</li>
<li dir="auto">That hundreds of millions of pounds of public <strong>money was wasted on PPE that couldn’t be used by the NHS</strong>.</li>
</ul>
<p dir="auto">What’s more, we have exposed what the leading QC acting for Good Law Project and EveryDoctor described as:</p>
<blockquote dir="auto">
<p dir="auto"><em>“a relentless campaign by the Defendant to obscure what really happened on significant issues.”</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Now, all that is left to do is wait for the judgement. We have no way of knowing when that might be handed down by the Judge - it could be weeks, or even months. We just have to sit tight.</p>
<p dir="auto">One thing we are certain of is that, as soon as we can, we will update you on the result. Your friends and family can sign up to receive news of the judgement too. You can encourage them to sign up for updates on social media.</p>
<p dir="auto"><strong><a href="https://glplive.org/fb-share-2505" title="Share on Facebook" rel="noopener noreferrer">Share on Facebook</a></strong> or <strong><a href="https://glplive.org/tw-share-2505" title="Share on Twitter" rel="noopener noreferrer">Share on Twitter</a></strong></p>
<p dir="auto">Bringing a case of this magnitude has only been possible thanks to the support of thousands of people across the country, including you. Regardless of the final judgement, together we have <strong>shone a light on Government practices that they would rather have kept hidden</strong>.</p>
<p dir="auto">Thank you for helping to make it happen,</p>
<p dir="auto">Jo Maugham<br>
Director of Good Law Project<br>
<strong><a href="https://goodlawproject.org" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://goodlawproject.org</a></strong></p>
<p dir="auto">Only with your support can we continue to hold the Government to account. If you are in a position to do so, <strong><a href="https://glplive.org/day5-donate-rd" rel="noopener noreferrer">you can make a donation here.</a></strong></p>
]]><![CDATA[UK High Court Day 4 Tory - 'VIP Lane' Covid-19 Contract Awarding Process]]>https://writeworks.uk/~/GoodLawProjectUnofficial/uk-high-court-day-4-tory-vip-lane-covid-19-contract-awarding-process/2021-05-25T10:41:39.942526+00:00Good Law Project [unofficial]https://writeworks.uk/@/goodlawproject/2021-05-25T10:41:39.942526+00:00<![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Today [24 May 2021] in the High Court, Government’s lawyers set out their defence to our legal challenge over PPE contracts handed to “VIP” companies. Government claims that companies in the VIP Lane did not materially benefit from their special treatment and that it was simply a different route by which they could win contracts.</p>
<p dir="auto"><strong>The evidence tells a different story.</strong></p>
<p dir="auto">Emails between officials reveal that companies with a political connection were given priority. A key member of the VIP Lane team wrote:</p>
<blockquote dir="auto">
<p dir="auto">‘<em>Speaking personally, I don’t want a middling VIP lead prioritised over a credible high priority lead any more than you do…However, if two leads are otherwise equal priority and one is VIP, some weighting to the VIP is helpful.</em>’</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">In another exchange, an official set out how companies placed in the “VIP” Lane should be treated, explaining:</p>
<blockquote dir="auto">
<p dir="auto"><em>“Follow standard procedure, but take a little more time over correspondence, ‘hand-holding’ the supplier where necessary</em>”. They followed up to say, ”<em>Personally, I’ve found VIP cases require about three times the time of a standard case</em>.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">What is perhaps most striking about Government’s defence of the “VIP” Lane is its apparent <em><strong>determination to keep quiet the details of the politically-connected beneficiaries</strong></em> - and which Ministers or senior officials referred them. When the National Audit Office, the official spending watchdog, investigated the award of PPE contracts, <em><strong><a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/uk-government-blocked-release-of-companies-in-vip-covid-lane/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Government intervened</a> to prevent it from revealing the names of companies</strong></em> in the “VIP” Lane.</p>
<p dir="auto">If the Government really has nothing to hide, why doesn’t it just come clean?</p>
<p dir="auto">Thanks to information uncovered through this litigation, we will be publishing details of a slew of other “VIPs” very shortly. Watch this space.</p>
<p dir="auto">Thank you, </p>
<p dir="auto">Jo Maugham<br>
Director of Good Law Project<br>
<strong><a href="https://goodlawproject.org" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://goodlawproject.org</a></strong></p>
<p dir="auto">Only with your support can we continue to hold the Government to account. If you are in a position to do so, <strong><a href="https://glplive.org/day4-donate-rd" rel="noopener noreferrer">you can make a donation here</a></strong>.</p>
]]><![CDATA[Video Update: This Week in Court - Tory Government PPE Procurement Scandal]]>https://writeworks.uk/~/GoodLawProjectUnofficial/video-update-this-week-in-court-tory-government-ppe-procurement-scandal/2021-05-21T11:13:02.231784+00:00Good Law Project [unofficial]https://writeworks.uk/@/goodlawproject/2021-05-21T11:13:02.231784+00:00<![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Gemma is the Legal Director of Good Law Project. This week, I’ve been in Court for the legal challenge we are bringing with EveryDoctor over the <strong>PPE procurement scandal</strong>.</p>
<p dir="auto">We wanted to give you a quick update on what has been going on. If you click the image below you can watch a short video with the details:</p>
<p dir="auto"><a href="https://invidious.tube/watch?v=KkKHEr-uEaQ" rel="noopener noreferrer">`<img src="https://writeworks.uk/static/media/AB4C3231-9CE9-74C2-DBBE-F6B1C6ECED55.jpg" alt="Gemma-video-cronyism"></a></p>
<p dir="auto">Bringing litigation of this scale and importance is only possible thanks to support from thousands of you. </p>
<p dir="auto">Thank you, </p>
<p dir="auto">Gemma Abbott<br>
Legal Director<br>
Good Law Project
<strong><a href="http://goodlawproject.org" rel="noopener noreferrer">http://goodlawproject.org</a></strong></p>
]]><![CDATA[High Court Updates - PPE 'VIP Lane' Commissioning ]]>https://writeworks.uk/~/GoodLawProjectUnofficial/high-court-updates-ppe-vip-lane-commissioning/2021-05-20T10:47:50.692176+00:00Good Law Project [unofficial]https://writeworks.uk/@/goodlawproject/2021-05-20T10:47:50.692176+00:00<![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Today the High Court heard our lawyers detail waste, mismanagement - and yet <strong><em>more special treatment for politically connected companies</em></strong> placed in the “VIP” Lane. </p>
<p dir="auto"><strong>Government paid tens of millions of pounds to PestFix and Ayanda Capital for face masks <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/government-agreed-spending-substandard-masks-ppe-covid-b935860.html" rel="noopener noreferrer">which did not meet</a> NHS standards.</strong> An email from a senior official stated that they needed to:</p>
<blockquote dir="auto">
<p dir="auto">“<em>get out of a contract</em>” due to “<em>a failure of the commercial process…</em>”</p>
</blockquote>
<ul dir="auto">
<li dir="auto">PestFix was in the <em>“VIP</em>” lane because an ex-director was <em><strong>an old-school friend of a senior official’s father-in-law</strong></em>.</li>
<li dir="auto">Ayanda, because one of its senior advisers was a <em><strong>member of Government’s Board of Trade</strong></em>.</li>
</ul>
<p dir="auto"><strong>Government failed to carry out any proper checks before ordering gowns from PestFix</strong>. After examining the evidence, our lawyers told the Court:</p>
<blockquote dir="auto">
<p dir="auto">“<em>over £100m spent on gowns with <strong>no technical assurance</strong>, <strong>no financial due diligence</strong> and based on a misunderstanding of the gowns which were actually being purchased</em>.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Government didn’t put its cards on the table. One witness went to some lengths to “gloss over” - as our lawyer put it - the lack of technical assurance. It was left to a detailed forensic review by our legal team to uncover this extraordinary failure. </p>
<p dir="auto"><strong>Government awarded huge contracts to Ayanda Capital despite it <em>having failed financial due diligence</em>.</strong> The hedge fund <em><strong>was given a red rating</strong></em>, which meant there were:</p>
<blockquote dir="auto">
<p dir="auto">“<em>Major issues or concerns [which] would need to be resolved before we use them</em>”</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto"><em><strong>Not only did this not dissuade Government from accepting Ayanda’s offer</strong></em> to supply millions of FFP2 masks, but its VIP status actually meant that <strong>it was invited to supply</strong> a different type of mask, leading to an even larger contract award.</p>
<h6 dir="auto">Taxpayers’ Money Dished Out</h6>
<p dir="auto">This was <em><strong>taxpayers’ money, dished out to companies because of who they knew, not what they could supply</strong></em>. The result - unsurprisingly - was a <em>waste of <u>hundreds of millions of pounds</u></em>. In these contracts alone.</p>
<p dir="auto">Our challenge seeks to get to the truth of the PPE procurement process in which - again to quote our lawyer:</p>
<blockquote dir="auto">
<p dir="auto"><em>“a truly colossal amount of public money</em>” was spent <em>“in circumstances of almost total secrecy”</em>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Please help us shine a light on this scandal by sharing with your friends and family and asking them to sign up for updates.</p>
<blockquote dir="auto">
<p dir="auto"><strong><a href="https://glplive.org/ppe-2-tw-sharer" title="Share on Twitter" rel="noopener noreferrer">Share on Twitter</a> — <a href="https://glplive.org/ppe-2-fb-sharer" title="Share on Facebook" rel="noopener noreferrer">Share on Facebook</a></strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Thank you,<br>
Jo Maugham <br>
Director of Good Law Project<br>
<a href="https://goodlawproject.org" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://goodlawproject.org</a></p>
<p dir="auto">Only with your support can we continue to hold the Government to account. If you are in a position to do so, <strong><a href="https://actions.goodlawproject.org/support-campaigns?ppe_2nd_day" rel="noopener noreferrer">you can make a donation here</a></strong>.</p>
]]><![CDATA[Today in Court - The Legal Challenge over UK Government’s Awarding of PPE Contracts]]>https://writeworks.uk/~/GoodLawProjectUnofficial/today-in-court-the-legal-challenge-over-uk-government’s-awarding-of-ppe-contracts/2021-05-18T23:05:58.163688+00:00Good Law Project [unofficial]https://writeworks.uk/@/goodlawproject/2021-05-18T23:05:58.163688+00:00<![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Today was the first day of our High Court legal <em><strong>challenge over Government’s award of PPE contracts</strong></em>. Here are three of the most shocking revelations from Court.</p>
<p dir="auto"><strong>1) Government prioritised companies because of who they knew and <em>not</em> what they could deliver.</strong> Take Pestfix and Multibrands. Both suppliers emailed the senior official in charge of NHS procurement explaining their ability to supply PPE. Multibrands did so on 20th March 2020, a week before Pestfix. Multibrands received no response. </p>
<p dir="auto">By contrast, Pestfix’s email resulted in their allocation to the “<em>VIP lane</em>”, where companies were fast-tracked to lucrative contracts. Why? _<strong>An ex-director of PestFix was an “old school friend” of the official’s father-in-law</strong>.</p>
<p dir="auto"><strong>2) Ministers <em>did not want their political contacts to have to wait in line with everyone else</em>.</strong> Evidence read out in Court revealed: </p>
<blockquote dir="auto">
<p dir="auto"><em>“…ministers and senior officials sometimes introduce offers of PPE and want them personally handled rather than going through surveys and bulk routes. Some of these contacts simply flatly refuse to proceed via a webform…..</em>“</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto"><strong>3) The banks were so concerned about Government’s <em>lack of due diligence</em> on companies who had been handed huge contracts that <em>they halted payments</em>.</strong> An email from a civil servant stated:</p>
<blockquote dir="auto">
<p dir="auto">_“It is… imperative that we rectify the with supplier due diligence to ensure we do not leave ourselves at unacceptable risk of fraud/loss”</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">There are more explosive revelations to come. Government would really rather they go unnoticed by the public. Together, we can make sure they don’t. Will you share the details of this scandal with your friends and family and encourage them to sign up for updates?</p>
<blockquote dir="auto">
<p dir="auto"><strong><a href="https://glplive.org/ppe-tw-sharer" title="Share on Twitter" rel="noopener noreferrer">Share on Twitter</a></strong> or <strong><a href="https://glplive.org/ppe-fb-sharer" title="Share on Facebook" rel="noopener noreferrer">Share on Facebook</a></strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Thank you as ever for your support. There will be more from Court tomorrow. If you’re interested, our skeleton can be read <a href="https://glplive.org/1805-c-skele" rel="noopener noreferrer">here</a>.</p>
<p dir="auto">Jo Maugham <br>
Director of Good Law Project<br>
<strong><a href="https://goodlawproject.org" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://goodlawproject.org</a></strong></p>
<p dir="auto">Only with your support can we continue to hold the Government to account. If you are in a position to do so, <strong><a href="https://glplive.org/ppe-donate-rd" rel="noopener noreferrer">you can make a donation here</a></strong>.</p>
]]><![CDATA[PPE Scandal: Next Week’s Hearing in the United Kingdom]]>https://writeworks.uk/~/GoodLawProjectUnofficial/ppe-scandal-next-week’s-hearing-in-the-united-kingdom/2021-05-16T11:55:45.649746+00:00Good Law Project [unofficial]https://writeworks.uk/@/goodlawproject/2021-05-16T11:55:45.649746+00:00<![CDATA[<p dir="auto">On Tuesday, our legal challenge to the <strong>PPE procurement scandal</strong> will be heard in the High Court. It’s the first day of a mammoth five day hearing. </p>
<p dir="auto">It is the culmination of months of work building our case and <em>we have had to fight Government at every stage</em> to get to this point:</p>
<ul dir="auto">
<li dir="auto">When <strong>they estimated an eye-watering costs bill</strong> that could have prevented us taking the case forward, we went to court and successfully secured a cap on costs.</li>
<li dir="auto">When <strong>they refused to disclose information</strong> that could prove crucial to the case, we again went before a Judge to argue the evidence should be provided. The Judge agreed.</li>
</ul>
<p dir="auto">Going up against the significant resources of Government to expose this scandal has only been possible thanks to ordinary people chipping in to our legal challenge. If you are in a position to do so, you <strong><a href="https://glplive.org/ppe-donate" rel="noopener noreferrer">can donate using this link</a></strong>.</p>
<p dir="auto">Good Law Project first started looking into Government procurement all the way back in May last year when we spotted a small news report that <em><strong>a pest control company had been handed an enormous PPE contract</strong></em>. As we started to pull at the thread of this unusual contract award, the whole scandal began to unravel. </p>
<blockquote dir="auto">
<p dir="auto">Over the last year through the course of this litigation, <em><strong>we have uncovered an opaque ‘VIP Lane’, where politically-connected companies were fast-tracked for lucrative deals</strong></em> and revealed that <strong>millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money were spent on PPE that couldn’t be used</strong> for its intended purposes.
There will no doubt be more shocking revelations in court next week about how Government went about awarding hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers money. We will update you as soon as we can.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Thank you,<br>
Jo Maugham <br>
Director of Good Law Project<br>
<a href="https://GoodLawProject.org" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://GoodLawProject.org</a></p>
<p dir="auto">Only with your support can we continue to hold the Government to account. If you are in a position to do so, <strong><a href="https://glplive.org/ppe-donate-1605" rel="noopener noreferrer">you can make a donation here</a></strong>.</p>
]]>