[Thread Pt1] Official summary of Govt's response to Wilson v PM JR claim (@UKEUchallenge) 👇👇
The govt response is preposterous. It misinterprets & distorts the grounds in what can only be described as an attempt to pervert the facts & side step the essence of the claim. /1
The govt response is preposterous. It misinterprets & distorts the grounds in what can only be described as an attempt to pervert the facts & side step the essence of the claim. /1
The Summary Grounds of Resistance (SGR) tries usual tricks to prevent a claim from getting permission.
1. Time
2. Unarguable
3. Non-justiciable
Each resistance can be strongly refuted by the Claimant; I'll deal with them briefly... /2
1. Time
2. Unarguable
3. Non-justiciable
Each resistance can be strongly refuted by the Claimant; I'll deal with them briefly... /2
Time: @theresa_may first asserts the claim is out of time because it needed to be brought within times ranging from 21 days to 6 weeks. These timing claims originate from Sch 3 of EURA 2015 & the Representation of the People Act 1983. Both can be heavily contested. /3
Time2: Another assertion that the claim is out of time is the govt's old favourite and under CPR 54.5(1) that the claim should be brought within 3 months of 24/6/16 (the ref) and 29/3/17 (the decision/notification). Again this can be heavily contested. /4
Time: The timing issues must be taken in turn but I must start by iterating that the response has ignored the fact that the PMs recent decision not to take any steps in response to the findings of the EC, ICO or DCMS is challenged and this is well within time. /5
Sch 3, para 19 of the 2015 Act provides 'Restriction on challenge to referendum result'. However, these restrictions are based on anomalies to the count - NOT corrupt & illegal practices. This timing restriction is not relevant to this claim. /6
The PM states that the Claimant should’ve brought the claim before the EC reached its findings (of Vote Leave & Leave.EU). But, as explained below, such a claim would have been rejected as being premature, academic &/or for failure to pursue an alternate remedy. /7
The PM ignores the fact that the EC closed its investigations twice into Vote Leave spending (4/10/16 & 21/3/17). After the release of info acquired in Sept 2017 (FOIA requests to EC), a JR challenge was brought regarding ‘working together’ having taken place in the campaign. /8
From that JR claim (which also raised issues regarding the EC’s lack of progress in relation to its investigation into Leave.EU) the EC re-opened its investigation into Vote Leave & Darren Grimes & also opened a new investigation into Arron Banks (20/11/17). /9
Ironically, the PM submits that the claim should’ve been brought before the EC Reports findings of May & July 2018. In other words, the claim should’ve been brought during the EC investigations because the public knew of their existence. /10
This attempt to invent a time bar is ridiculous. A JR claim was refused on a ground that, on the evidence available to the EC, it should have found that the relevant offences had been committed. Permission was refused cuz that matter still needed to be determined by the EC. /11
In contradiction of the PMs submission that this claim is timed-out, the Court stated in that JR that the Claimant would have to await the outcome of the EC’s findings before that part of its challenge could be heard, to do so before then would be academic & premature. /12
The PM is asking something implausible of the court here to time bar the case: somehow the claim could’ve/should’ve been brought on the basis of speculation regarding what the EC may or may not find in relation to conduct in the 2016 Ref. /13
The PM seeks refusal on a separate ground, namely, that the claim would ‘plainly be detrimental to good administration’. This, to me, is arguably the most hypocritical legal argument I’ve ever seen. The Decision & Notification are the epitome of bad administration. /14
The PM’s utter lack of response & failure to take into account the ‘corrupt & illegal practices’ during the Ref campaign (when deciding), thus undermining the legitimacy of the result, is plainly detrimental not only to good administration but to democracy & the rule of law. /15
Counsels’ response is perfect to this: ‘This claim raises issues of fundamental constitutional importance, namely the effect of significant fraudulent activity in breach of ref/election laws upon a democratic vote. This plainly goes to the heart of “good administration”’. /16
As in Webster, the Defendant asserts that the claim impinges on negs with the EU27. This is implausible; Wilson is concerned with the legality of domestic executive acts. Nowhere does the claim seek relief to keep the UK in the EU. The PM has perverted the pleadings here. /17
The PM argues that the Court is unable to review the decisions legality as it can only have regard to the facts known to the decision maker at the time. It's accepted that her decision to notify would have been unlawful if she had knowledge; but she didn't have such knowledge /18
With due respect, that is nonsense AND contradicts the submission that the Claimant should've brought the claim earlier. The illegalities in campaign spending were "a matter of public record" thus known to the PM at the time that she decided to make the A50 notification. /19
Something needs further scrutiny of the court: if the PM was fully aware of the illegalities, including their seriousness and constitutional significance but took the decision to notify anyway, that raises a number of serious questions about legality. /20
The Claimant has made a Request for Further Information in order to get disclosure on this matter (16 requests in fact). Disclosure is required in accordance with the duty of candour where public servants should 'explain fully what has occurred and why'. /20
The spurious argument that the PM had no knowledge of the EC investigations is further exacerbated as it ignores the nature of the claim which relates to both the original decision & the PMs recent decision to also ignore the findings of the EC, ICO and DCMS. /21
The court is permitted to review an error of fact taking into account NEW evidence (R(A) v Croydon LBC [2009] UKSC 8). An error of fact constitutes a separate ground of review (E v Sec of State for the Home Dept [2004] EWCA Civ 49). All the courts tests are met in this case. /22
The PM submits that whether a vote is ‘democratic’ was a ‘political/value judgment’ call that she was allowed to take (rule of law?). The question posed to the court is a matter of law: was the Ref conducted lawfully? If not, was it lawful for the PM to make the Decision? /23
The next thread continues with counsel's response to the govt's Summary Grounds of Resistance (SGR) and picks up with why the @UKEUchallenge is both arguable and justiciable. /24
