The @ElectoralCommUK has lashed out at @GoodLawProject suggesting it is "using [the Judicial Review], and the restrictions imposed upon the commission by the Northern Ireland transparency laws, to fuel public mistrust where none is merited." (bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northe…). /1 
That is a heavy allegation for a public body to make. So is it justified?
Our case concerns reportedly the largest political donation in NI's political history. It was purportedly made by a Scottish based unincorporated association to a political party in Northern Ireland... /2
Our case concerns reportedly the largest political donation in NI's political history. It was purportedly made by a Scottish based unincorporated association to a political party in Northern Ireland... /2
... apparently with instructions (that were followed) that it be spent in England and in Scotland with only a tiny fraction being retained in NI.
Donations made to the DUP, unlike those to an English or Scottish political party, benefit from special secrecy provisions. /3
Donations made to the DUP, unlike those to an English or Scottish political party, benefit from special secrecy provisions. /3
You might think that a fishy set of circumstances. We do.
In our earlier judicial review of @ElectoralCommUK we established to be the law that if X donates money to Y and dictates how Y is to spend it then X is treated as incurring expenditure and is obliged to "register". /4
In our earlier judicial review of @ElectoralCommUK we established to be the law that if X donates money to Y and dictates how Y is to spend it then X is treated as incurring expenditure and is obliged to "register". /4
A failure to register is, we believe, a criminal offence and so on 5 October 2018 we wrote to @ElectoralCommUK inviting it to confirm that it would now take action against the CRC. /5
It wrote back making a number of points. It said it wanted to await the outcome of its appeal. We disagree but, fine.
It then made a further point which struck as as simply remarkable in the case of an unprecedentedly large donation made in fishy circumstances. /6
It then made a further point which struck as as simply remarkable in the case of an unprecedentedly large donation made in fishy circumstances. /6
The @ElectoralCommUK says that, even if that donation is unlawful, it will not necessarily do anything about it.
We think that failing to take action in a case like this puts our democracy up for sale with the Electoral Commission as auctioneer. /7
We think that failing to take action in a case like this puts our democracy up for sale with the Electoral Commission as auctioneer. /7
So who is "fueling public mistrust": is it @GoodLawProject or is it the inactions of @ElectoralCommUK?
Are they right to say that no "public mistrust... is merited" where they have said on the record they may not act even if there has been this breach of the law? /8
Are they right to say that no "public mistrust... is merited" where they have said on the record they may not act even if there has been this breach of the law? /8
We are happy to let you decide.
We will shortly publish on @GoodLawProject's website copies all correspondence between ourselves and @ElectoralCommUK.
If you would like to support this case you can do so here. crowdjustice.com/case/even-secr… /ENDS
We will shortly publish on @GoodLawProject's website copies all correspondence between ourselves and @ElectoralCommUK.
If you would like to support this case you can do so here. crowdjustice.com/case/even-secr… /ENDS
All the materials mentioned in this thread, along with the Grounds of our Judicial Review can be seen in this thread: goodlawproject.org/materials-dupc…
