Good Law Project Limited

Yet another crushing defeat for Maugham/GLP.

This time in respect of Ministers, MP's etc using personal phones and apps to communicate with.

Maugham/GLP painted a picture that all the sleaze, corruption, illegality, cronyism was being done in private and 'false' (Potemkin) government committee reports were concocted thereafter.

What does that last bit mean?

Well Potenkin is creating something false - see here -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village

The next bit is although Maugham/GLP made these claims many and often - at court they did not mention them at all!

So noticeable was this that the Government Counsel basically took the piss out of them and the judge absolutely slammed them for wasting everybody's time for not withdrawing these 'unfounded' allegations prior to the court day if they had no case to present in this respect.

This was GLP main argument in the case!!!

The following is the judges summary -

Background to the Claim
All the Citizens (“AtC”) and the Good Law Project “(GLP”) challenge the use of nonGovernment (“private”) communication systems (such as WhatsApp, Signal and
private email) for Government business. Their case is that the use of such systems, and
also the use of “auto-delete” functions, means that public records that should be retained are instead deleted or are otherwise not available to be preserved for the
public record. They say that this is unlawful because (a) it is incompatible with the
Public Records Act 1958 (“the 1958 Act”) and the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(“FoIA”); and (b) it amounts to an unjustified breach of various policies in respect of
the use of communication systems, and record keeping. They also challenge the content
of various Government policies, because, they say, those policies authorise conduct
that is unlawful (the use of instant messaging services, and auto-deletion).
The Government accepts that Ministers (including the Prime Minister) and officials
have sometimes used private communication systems and have made use of autodelete functions. It disputes that this breaches the 1958 Act or FoIA. It agrees there has
sometimes been non-compliance with policy, but it disputes that its internal policies
are enforceable by a court. It says that some of its policies will be re-written in the light
of the court’s judgment in this case

The claims: Each of the claims brought by AtC and GLP fails, because the policies on
which they rely are not enforceable in a claim for judicial review [130] – [131], [138],
[140], the policies are not contrary to any legal obligation on the Government [135]
and because the legislation does not impose an obligation to create or retain records
and does not prohibit automatic deletion [133], [139], [141]. A challenge to a 2013
policy of the Cabinet Office fails for the further reason that the claim is out of time
[142], [153] – [157].

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/AtC-and-GLP-Press-Summary-29-April.pdf

It seems certain that GLP will have costs awarded against them in this respect as stated as early as point 7 out of their 158 point report (see link below)!

Basically the 41 pages of the judges findings rips to pieces Maugham/GLP case - read the findings for yourselves if you don't believe me.

What they say in simple terms is that JR's only judge in black or white - as the law been administered correctly or not - and they have!

The judges just rule on what the existing laws are and if they have been applied correctly.

GLP clearly know this and that is why they didn't present a case as such on the day.

Their aim 1s and always will be to present the Tory government in a negative way - and does so for free because the stupid and gullible believe they are doing a wonderful job and crowd fund them.

The penny is beginning to drop with a few now though.

Towards to end of their findings, once again the question of Maugham/GLP's standing was discussed but it became academic by then as the judges had found in all cases against GLP but the inference was that yet again the view was that GLP 'game' (my word) was up - and this is clearly seen in recent earlier posts above of mine of how GLP states how they are going to operate in the future.

Anyway judges findings here -

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/AtC-GLP-final-judgment.pdf

Maugham/GLP have been granted the right to appeal...

...however it doesn't necessarily means they will do though!

ADDENDUM - Apparently GLP had full costs which had previously been capped at £125,000 awarded against them.

I don't know how true this is but it wouldn't surprise me if it actual was!

The JR service is open to abuse from GLP as GLP have no costs to themselves (all publicly funded by crowd donations) and thus deliberately pursue a high profile attack on the Tory Government to discredit it, irrespective if there is any legal merit in their cases or not - thus their prime aim is to smear the government they hate and not consider at all the merit/chances of actually proving their allegations to be true or legal.

In other words if GLP had to fund the JR's they seek funded by their own money then they would not be pursuing many (if any) of the cases they have simply because the prospect of winning them (and recovering their costs at court) are practically little to none.

Fact of the Day https://t.co/3xDLmhKUMv pic.twitter.com/SHxzDK14vp

— Guido Fawkes (@GuidoFawkes) May 18, 2022

Wow! 19% success rate for a private organisation against a closed-ranks government that has form for not being above lying? That's pretty impressive.

wanderlust wrote:Wow! 19% success rate for a private organisation against a closed-ranks government that has form for not being above lying? That's pretty impressive.

You for real???

You need to forget your hatred of the Tory Party and look at the results based on the impartiality of the judiciary - not least because it is being judged on the basis of legality and not on which (political) side you support in all this.

You need to examine what the GLP/Maugham's wins actually resulted in and the simple answer is absolutely nothing.

They only ever claimed 'three' wins in respect of PPE/Covid contracts and I put the number 'three' in there only because Maugham 'claimed' a win but the judge in his summary basically threw out the whole of the GLP part of the case in its entirety!!!  The case was won (on a technicality in respect of a minor EU Directive racial equality 'box ticking' requirement which was overlooked) by another party making a similar case.  Again nothing flowed from the decision other than the award of 'winning' the case in 'name only'. (Dido Harding appointment).

Another case was simply just another win in name only as the judge ruled that they won on just a minor technicality and it that didn't change the outcome of the award of the contracts - and thus refused to award a 'remedy' - which in simple terms meant they had to pay their own costs.  Or to put it another way, their case proved absolutely nothing, had no effect on the end results of what the government did, and GLP was unable to claim its substantial legal costs from their initial court case and the resulting High Court Appeal case.  (VIP Lane).

The only 'win' they had was the governments failure to publish PPE contracts awarded within 30 days of award during the initial worldwide onslaught of Covid - and even the government admitted they were unable to achieve this prior to the court case as their priority at the time was to obtain the PPE  and not to worry about the petty EU 'box ticking' bureaucracy whilst attempting prioritise the saving of lives at that time.

So in well over two years on now of all these vast amounts of sleaze, corruption, and cronyism allegations (from which they duped their gullible followers to finance their court actions via crowd funding) (and of which you clearly implicitly believed have happened) they've actually proved exactly nothing of what they've claimed!

Maybe that's because it never actually happened perhaps?

You'd think there would have been at least one whistle blower with facts that have emerged by now if it had wouldn't you?

I know I would.

Anyway the GLP/Maugham model is now completely busted as can be clearly evidenced how they now work following the not to subtle comments from the High Court Appeal judges in regards to their future court standing.

You (and to be fair many others too) need to put your hatred and prejudice to one side and judge things on the facts like the judges have.

GLP/Maugham have stirred up a mountain of shit but the simple truth is that they can't back up much if any of it with any hard facts.

It's basically just propaganda that you (and many others) want to believe is true.

Up to now they have avoided proving any of it to be true - because they can't.

That's why their strategy was always to go to JR's and not to the criminal courts as one would do if you had any proof to back up what is claimed.

You've been played mate but you are just so full of hate that you are completely blind to it.

Sluffy wrote:

You for real???

You need to forget your hatred of the Tory Party and look at the results based on the impartiality of the judiciary - not least because it is being judged on the basis of legality and not on which (political) side you support in all this.

You need to examine what the GLP/Maugham's wins actually resulted in and the simple answer is absolutely nothing.

They only ever claimed 'three' wins in respect of PPE/Covid contracts and I put the number 'three' in there only because Maugham 'claimed' a win but the judge in his summary basically threw out the whole of the GLP part of the case in its entirety!!!  The case was won (on a technicality in respect of a minor EU Directive racial equality 'box ticking' requirement which was overlooked) by another party making a similar case.  Again nothing flowed from the decision other than the award of 'winning' the case in 'name only'. (Dido Harding appointment).

Another case was simply just another win in name only as the judge ruled that they won on just a minor technicality and it that didn't change the outcome of the award of the contracts - and thus refused to award a 'remedy' - which in simple terms meant they had to pay their own costs.  Or to put it another way, their case proved absolutely nothing, had no effect on the end results of what the government did, and GLP was unable to claim its substantial legal costs from their initial court case and the resulting High Court Appeal case.  (VIP Lane).

The only 'win' they had was the governments failure to publish PPE contracts awarded within 30 days of award during the initial worldwide onslaught of Covid - and even the government admitted they were unable to achieve this prior to the court case as their priority at the time was to obtain the PPE  and not to worry about the petty EU 'box ticking' bureaucracy whilst attempting prioritise the saving of lives at that time.

So in well over two years on now of all these vast amounts of sleaze, corruption, and cronyism allegations (from which they duped their gullible followers to finance their court actions via crowd funding) (and of which you clearly implicitly believed have happened) they've actually proved exactly nothing of what they've claimed!

Maybe that's because it never actually happened perhaps?

You'd think there would have been at least one whistle blower with facts that have emerged by now if it had wouldn't you?

I know I would.

Anyway the GLP/Maugham model is now completely busted as can be clearly evidenced how they now work following the not to subtle comments from the High Court Appeal judges in regards to their future court standing.

You (and to be fair many others too) need to put your hatred and prejudice to one side and judge things on the facts like the judges have.

GLP/Maugham have stirred up a mountain of shit but the simple truth is that they can't back up much if any of it with any hard facts.

It's basically just propaganda that you (and many others) want to believe is true.

Up to now they have avoided proving any of it to be true - because they can't.

That's why their strategy was always to go to JR's and not to the criminal courts as one would do if you had any proof to back up what is claimed.

You've been played mate but you are just so full of hate that you are completely blind to it.

No - what I need to do is not give a f***
It's beyond boring how you bang on about this.

wanderlust wrote:
No - what I need to do is not give a f***
It's beyond boring how you bang on about this.

Hahaha!!!

You what???

You do make me laugh!

You didn't need to post anything if you found it boring and when you did I simply shot you down with the facts...

That's why you are throwing a hiss fit now!

Numerous High Court Judges have ruled against Maugham/GLP and the only cases they have ruled for them have been on either the most slightest of technicalities or just the single case where the government had accepted it had not complied with a box ticking exercise in advance of the hearing because of the mitigating circumstance and priority of trying to acquire PPE at the very start of the Covid pandemic and in competition with the rest of the world!

Those are the facts - the judges written findings - which you can check out for yourself if you don't care to believe what I write.

As for me banging on about something, that's a good one, because I'm a complete novice compared to you and your ceaseless and obsessive hatred of all things Tory on here!!!

Facts?

It's a vindictive diatribe of biased Mystic Meg style guesses about what they think, of what I think, of what the judges think and what the funders think - presented as if your guesses about what others think actually counts for anything.

The only fact is that they won 19% of their cases. FACT.

Your attempts at mind-reading? NOT FACT.

wanderlust wrote:Facts?

It's a vindictive diatribe of biased Mystic Meg style guesses about what they think, of what I think, of what the judges think and what the funders think - presented as if your guesses about what others think actually counts for anything.

The only fact is that they won 19% of their cases. FACT.

Your attempts at mind-reading? NOT FACT.

Are you on drugs or something???

I'm stating the ACTUAL High Court judgements determined by the High Court judges themselves.


Dido Harding Judgement.
GLP and Runnymede Trust v The Prime Minister and The Secretary of State for Health.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/The-Queen-on-the-application-of-1-Good-Law-Project-2-Runnymede-Trust-v-1-Prime-Minister-SSHSC-judgment.pdf

Result - The High Court Judges unequivocally stated that "the claim brought by Good Law Project fails in its entirety" (see point 126 of their findings).


VIP Lane Judgement (Appeal Court hearing)
GLP and Every Doctor v The Secretary of State for Health
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vJHxocQbUmp5nj1b71ry3W352MHS1nhg/view

Result - The High Court Judges REFUSED to award a declaratory 'relief' see points 457, 510 and 518.


As for GLP being 'busted' and having to change their 'strategy' they say so themselves - see post 116 of this very thread.


I'm not 'guessing' (as you put it) anything at all - they are all document facts.

And fwiw everything I've stated above, I've previously reported on and linked to on threads on here before - I'm not actually stating anything new!

You're the one in some sort of serious denial mate.

And that's stating the bleeding obvious and not needing to read your mind at all!

wanderlust wrote:

karlypants wrote:I really wish you would just shut the fuck up. 

I am absolutely sick and tired of this shit.

Just thought that out of fairness that if I get stuff like this then you certainly deserve one too.

As per my earlier comments GLP is reinventing itself as its previous business model has been all but officially busted following the recent documented comments from a number of very senior High Court judges in respect of their 'standing' to take to court the types of cases they had been doing.

It would seem to me that GLP have now become somewhat of a pariah to respectable legal firms because of the judges opinion of them and how they have been operating.

Seems they are now having to set up their own legal practice to take on their own cases.

I imagine their crowdfunding money will have dropped substantially as well in that they are no longer able to take on frivolous cases against the government (as their record at JR's clearly attest to) and as such can't rattle their buckets for the huge donations from the anti-Tory brigade as they had been doing.

We are so excited to today be launching Good Law Practice, our own regulated law firm. 🧵https://t.co/iqcumgZS7a

— Good Law Project (@GoodLawProject) May 24, 2022

GLP's accounts are imminent although they haven't got to Companies House yet.

Their Annual Report can be seen below in which they state they raised a massive £6.4m in income - nearly all of it exclusively from crowd funding (they raised just £1.8m the previous year) so combined their supporters have given them from out of their own pockets just over £8m in just two years!!!

What have they achieved with this £8m public donations though?

Well I guess it depends on how you view things.

If you view it in facts and figures their accounts are showing that they made a loss on legal costs awarded to them in the year up to January 2022 following a surplus the previous year giving a net award of just under £260k over two years.

Utilising £8m to make a 'return' of just £260k doesn't seem to be the best use of other peoples money to me (money in £8m, money out £260k - simply isn't efficient or sustainable really is it?).

Add to that GLP states that from the court actions they have taken or in the process of taking they have a liability of over £3.2m to face if they fail to win every case (which is highly likely as they are apparently only successful in 1 in 5 of their cases brought to court - goodness knows how many others have been refused permission!) and only have put a provision of £2m to fund any losses from (however they are unlikely to lose all their cases either - just based on the law of averages if nothing else).

I honestly do not know of any meaningful judicial result they won over the last two years, absolutely nothing has actually flowed from the few wins I'm aware  they've achieved other than 'technically' there was a minor fault in how the government applied the law at the time they applied it which led to GLP's JR's.

For instance nothing changed following their win over publication of contracts within 30 days, their case was completely rejected by the judge in their case about 'crony' appointments of Tory government 'mates' in the Dido Harding judgement and even their win over the VIP was hollow in that the judge deemed the contracts would have been awarded to those companies in any event if they hadn't come through the VIP lane and thus REFUSED to award a remedy.

They have budgeted for a loss from their crowd funding revenue received so even if they lost all their ongoing cases they will still probably be solvent. (However note their change in strategy in recent months away from taking on the government over quite frankly flippant cases and banking on a win on some minor technicality - the upshot being even if they win some they are still not covering their costs as they are not being awarded their costs by the judges).

Apparently 61,500 people donated to the GLP last year.

I think Maugham and GLP will be around for quite a while yet with that sort of blind loyalty to them.

The phrase 'fool and their money' comes to my mind though!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hNLy6wAfevFVsVWTv4pLuYliJdZe5qbx/view

Good Law Project: fantasies and little stupid jokes
Posted on May 9, 2022 by wonkypolicywonk
It’s confession time.

Twice in recent months on this blog – in February and in April – I have had a pop at Jolyon Maugham QC and his midlife crisis plaything, the Good Law Project.

But I am bad. Because I mocked Jolyon without knowing the full extent of the good work that he has done. So, I want to make amends. I want to live my values. To be a good person. Like Jolyon.

Yes, Jolyon has been even busier than I thought. In fact, he’s been so busy that it is probably helpful to break down his frenetic activity into three phases.

We can call the first of these phases The Golden Years, when Jolyon was single-handedly battling Brexit on behalf of the 99.99% of the population who don’t own a windmill, and have never clubbed a fox to death in their garden while wearing their wife’s silk kimono. During these glory years (2017-19), Jolyon or his Good Law Project raked in more than £1 million from 15 Crowdjustice crowdfunders, and won a few times in court, even if the Brexit-related court wins made absolutely no difference in the end. As you may have noticed, the Article 50 notification never came close to being revoked, and the UK left the EU in January 2020, despite Jolyon overturning the dastardly prorogation of Parliament by Dominic Cummings.



Then we come to what we might call the Manic Covid Era of 2020-21, during which Jolyon seems to have launched a new crowdfunder every time he opened a newspaper and read something he didn’t like. I had thought that there were 16 crowdfunders launched during this era, but in fact there were 29 – more than one a month. However, in two cases the Good Law Project abandoned the threatened judicial review so quickly that it never drew down the few donations pledged (£14,646 and £23,005 respectively). So, there were 27 crowdfunders from which the Good Law Project received donations.

Unfortunately, as noted in my previous posts in February and in April, this era was not quite so golden for Jolyon and the Good Law Project. Indeed, what most people would regard as ‘success’ has been somewhat elusive. And the 11 crowdfunders that I only learnt about yesterday don’t make the picture any prettier.



Yes, that’s £3.1 million, and not a lot of green. Furthermore, as I noted on this blog in February, those two High Court declarations are of questionable value. (And yes, in the Cronyism case, co-claimants the Runnymede Trust were granted a third, near-meaningless declaration that the appointment process had not complied with the Public Sector Equality Duty. However, as I noted in February, the judges ruled that “the [cronyism] claim brought by the Good Law Project fails in its entirety.”)

Most of the eleven 2020/21 crowdfunders that I somehow managed to miss originally are closed, but four remain open, including one about the awarding of contracts for PPE that has raised £68,277 since its launch in November 2020, but which has not been updated since February 2021 [Update: this crowdfunder was closed on 23 May 2022, seemingly without anything having been achieved], and one about the Government’s Net Zero strategy, in which there is a High Court hearing scheduled for 8-9 June. And then there’s the case – Bunzl Healthcare – in which the Good Law Project is currently seeking a costs cap and cheerfully admits that “[we] are on the hook for a vast sum if we don’t get one”.

In six of these eleven crowdfunders, the judicial review claim was abandoned or withdrawn by the Good Law Project without anything significant having been achieved. In two cases – one claim challenging Operation Moonshot and one about a Covid public inquiry – the claim was abandoned after a refusal of permission by the High Court. These six crowdfunders raised a total of £306,008.

And finally we come to 2022. So far this year, Jolyon and the Good Law Project have launched only two new crowdfunders. The Manic Covid Era does seem to be over. And this may be because Jolyon has decided that the judges all have it in for him. Such infamy.



In short, since 2017, Jolyon and the Good Law Project have raised a grand total of £4,211,325 from 44 Crowdjustice crowdfunders.

£4.2 million.

NB: In addition to the money raised by the 44 crowdfunders, the Good Law Project receives substantial sums in regular and one-off direct donations. According to its annual report for 2019/20 – the latest available – as of January 2020 the GLP had some 1,900 regular donors, and in the 12 months to 31 January 2020 it received £222,000 in such direct donations. And, according to the accounts and financial statements filed with Companies House in April 2021, in the 12 months to 31 January 2021 the GLP received £1,136,155 in such direct donations, and another £225,504 in grants. Just today, a GLP tweet indicates that the GLP now has “thousands” of monthly donors.

[Update, 27 May: The GLP has just published its annual report for 2020/21, and this confirms that, as of January 2021, the GLP had almost 13,000 regular donors. In the 12 months to 31 January 2021, at least 22,452 people made a recurring or one-off donation direct to the GLP. The average monthly donation was £8.77, and the average one-off donation was £31.00.]

So, that’s an income of at least £5.5 million since 2017, plus the regular and one-off donations, and grants, in 2021/22 – which it seems reasonable to assume will have exceeded £1.5 million. So, north of £7 million since 2017. To achieve what, exactly?

https://labourpainsblog.com/

To achieve what, exactly?

Good Law Project: Failing at a not-so-technical level
Posted on February 23, 2022 by wonkypolicywonk

Last week, the Good Law Project, run by my good friend Jolyon Maugham QC, was in the news for claiming to have won a legal case challenging alleged cronyism on the part of government ministers when appointing Dido Harding and others, when in fact it had used £388,635 of crowdfunded donations to lose a legal case challenging alleged cronyism on the part of government ministers when appointing Dido Harding and others.

Well, I say ‘lose’, but Jolyon insists the Good Law Project only lost “at a deeply technical level”, despite the judges having ruled (see paragraph 126 of the judgment) that – while co-claimants the Runnymede Trust were entitled to a nice-to-have but in practical terms near-meaningless ‘declaration’ that the appointment process had not complied with the public sector equality duty – “the [cronyism] claim brought by the Good Law Project fails in its entirety”. Suffice to say, I plan to adopt Jolyon’s approach at my next annual performance review.

And I say ‘friend’, but in fact Jolyon and I have only ever met twice: once when we sat next to each other at a seminar on Universal Basic Income, and once – a few months later – when he mistook me for the then joint leader of the Green Party, so spent several minutes telling me, in breathless tones, how he’d just come from Downing Street, where he’d met with someone really, really important. Unable to get a word in, I nodded along until, my escort duties complete, I let Jolyon into the room where the then joint leader of the Green Party was waiting to meet him.

But if legal claims can be described as having been ‘won’ when, according to the actual judges who ruled on them, they failed in their entirety, then Jolyon and I can be described as good friends. Even if Jolyon blocked me on Twitter years ago. And the fox that Jolyon boasted about having clubbed with a baseball bat on Boxing Day in 2019 can be described as having died, but only at a deeply technical level. (As Maya Angelou said, when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.)

Whatever, you might think that £388,635 is a lot of money to spend on a legal claim that failed at a deeply technical level/in its entirety, but that is not even the largest amount that Jolyon and the Good Law Project have raised via no fewer than 18 separate Crowdjustice crowdfunders in recent years.

That distinction belongs to a claim challenging the legality of the Government’s high priority lane for the awarding of contracts (for the supply of PPE) early in the Covid19 pandemic. For this claim, the Good Law Project crowdfunded a staggering £427,399, but this expenditure has resulted only in the issuing, in January this year, of a similarly nice-to-have but in practical terms near-meaningless ‘declaration’ that the operation of the high priority lane was “in breach of the obligation of equal treatment”. The High Court ruled that the high priority lane itself was not unlawful, and that the contracts in question would most likely have been awarded in any event.

Interestingly, Jolyon and the Good Law Project are now seeking to appeal this outcome in the Court of Appeal. Because winning parties don’t usually appeal their own glorious victories. [Update: On 29 April, the Court of Appeal refused GLP’s application for permission to appeal.]

A third claim, for which the Good Law Project crowdfunded a relatively modest £204,900, also resulted, in February last year, in the High Court issuing a ‘declaration’ that the Government had not fully complied with transparency rules on the publishing of Covid19-related contracts, but declining to order any other relief. As I understand it, the Secretary of State’s explanation for this failure to get all the details exactly right was that he and his Department were very busy dealing with the first wave of Covid, and a huge amount of the burden was falling on him, more than he could realistically be across. Oh, hang on … no, that was Jolyon.

It's funny, but the excuses used by Saint Foxy and the Good Law Project - 'we're very busy, far too busy to be across all the details' - are beginning to look a lot like HMG's defence of many of GLP's JRs: 'we were very busy, far too busy to get all the details exactly right'. pic.twitter.com/PAUTC4d6It

— Richard Dunstan (barf) (@Wonkypolicywonk) February 19, 2022

Whatever, that’s a total of £1,020,934 to obtain three High Court ‘declarations’ of extremely limited import. As you may have noticed, no minister has been forced to resign or even apologise, not a single allegedly dodgy contract or job offer has been cancelled, and not a penny of allegedly misspent taxpayers’ money has been recovered from alleged villains. So, if indeed these three cases – and the three nice-to-put-in-a-frame-on-the-wall but in practical terms near-meaningless ‘declarations’ – amount to legal victories for the Good Law Project, they are little more than symbolic victories of a somewhat pyrrhic nature. Just imagine what any half-decent legal advice charity – your local law centre, for example – might have achieved with that £1 million.

And then we come to the crowdfunded-claims that have not even secured such a ‘declaration’. First up is a claim challenging the legality of the award of Covid19-related contracts to associates of Dominic Cummings, for which the Good Law Project crowdfunded a stonking £403,931, but which has (so far) resulted only in the Good Law Project losing big in the Court of Appeal. For some reason, it took the Good Law Project a whole month to update the crowdfunder with this rather significant news. But at least that one has been updated, which is more than can be said of the crowdfunder for a claim seeking to challenge the Government’s Levelling Up fund, for which the Good Law Project raised £84,637 before quietly withdrawing the claim in January on account of its “low prospects of success”.

And then there’s the legal claim alleging impropriety in the appointment of a new Charity Commission chair – “Don’t let government muzzle charities!” – for which the Good Law Project crowdfunded £84,552, only to quietly withdraw the claim earlier this month without achieving anything much [an investigation of the appointment process by the Commissioner for Public Appointments has since concluded that the process was “consistent and fair”, and that there was “no impropriety”].

Then there’s the three claims – one seeking to challenge the outcome of the Electoral Commission’s investigation of Leave campaign funding, one seeking to challenge local authority placement of children in care, and one seeking to challenge the award of Covid19-related contracts to associates of (now former) Downing Street adviser Munira Mirza – for which the Good Law Project crowdfunded a total of £152,736, only for the court to refuse permission to bring the claim in each case.

In the last of these three cases, the High Court refused permission because the Good Law Project’s external lawyers (Bindmans LLP) had bungled the lodging of the application, and the Good Law Project is seeking to appeal that decision in the Court of Appeal: a hearing took place on 1 February (i.e. three weeks ago), and at the time of writing the outcome is awaited. [Update: on 24 March, the appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, and the Good Law Project are now making a further appeal to the Supreme Court.]

So, that’s a total of £725,856 to obtain … nothing. No declarations. Zilch. Nada. Rien.

As for the one solid ‘win’ for Jolyon and the Good Law Project among the 18 crowdfunded legal claims – the famous Wightman case that concluded on 10 December 2018 with the European Court of Justice ruling that the UK’s Article 50 Brexit notification was unilaterally revocable, and which Jolyon has modestly described as “the most important case in modern legal history” – that case is surely the epitome of a hollow victory. For the Article 50 notification never came close to being revoked, and the UK left the EU in January 2020. So, apart from Jolyon himself, and the lawyers who received their share of the £190,650 raised through the Good Law Project’s crowdfunder, not one single citizen has benefitted from the bringing of the Wightman case, and none ever will.

Elsewhere, there is a still unresolved appeal against the charitable status of a lesbian and gay rights campaign group that Jolyon doesn’t like (£71,835 crowdfunded to date), which will be heard by the First-Tier Tribunal in May [now September]; an unresolved legal claim relating to the safety of PCR tests (£52,992 crowdfunded to date), which feels a tad passé; a potential legal challenge to Covid19 school attendance guidance, crowdfunded to the tune of £27,810, which appears to have been overtaken by events; and an attempt to force a review of the Airports National Policy Statement (£60,932 crowdfunded to date), which appears to be on hold.

There are also two related claims challenging ministers’ use of private emails and apps to conduct government business (£76,868 crowdfunded to date and £128,251 crowdfunded to date respectively), in which there is a court hearing scheduled for 22-24 March [Update: the first of these two claims was dismissed by the High Court on 29 April 2022, with GLP having crowdfunded a total of £118,211]; and an on/off legal challenge to alleged bullying of Tory MPs, for which £48,335 was crowdfunded before being diverted to the Good Law Project’s work on ‘partygate’).

And, of course, there’s the Legal Defence Fund for Transgender Lives (£181,835 crowdfunded to date), which is being used to launch legal proceedings against NHS England in relation to the healthcare needs of the trans community.

At the time of writing, you can still fling your dosh at many of these 18 crowdfunders, which between them have (so far) raised more than £2.5 million (£2,586,153, to be exact). It’s your money, so it’s your choice. But you might want to consider whether your money might achieve a tad more real world change elsewhere.

https://labourpainsblog.com/2022/02/23/good-law-project-failing-at-a-not-so-technical-level/