Thread by @JolyonMaugham

On 9 July we wrote and on 10 July we issued proceedings against @michaelgove for unlawfully awarding a hugely lucrative contract to Public First, run by long time associates of his and the Blind Drivers.

We said the decision was unlawful because the legal preconditions to sidestepping normal procurement rules - that exist to protect public money - were not met. And because of 'apparent' bias, ie a reasonable person would think they were biased in favour of Public First.

You can read the bundle - which we have published because we believe transparency is a good thing - here.

The key documents to read are the statement of facts and grounds and the witness statements. goodlawproject.org/news/update-mo…

Yesterday, a month and ten days after we issued proceedings, we received the Defendant's Summary Grounds of Resistance, a documenf mandated by Court Rules.

And it doesn't seem to have any: this is it in its entirety (I have removed only the lawyers' names).

There is no denial by Michael Gove of our claims. No argument that it was lawful to give the contract to Public First.

So why is that? And remember that Public First has since been awarded, again entirely without any normal tender process, two further contracts.

Now, of course, I do not *know* why they are not arguing that it was lawful to do what they did, and continue to do. All I know is that it is extremely unusual for a Secretary of State to take this course.

But here is my *view*: I think there are two things going on.

The first is that, Gove and/or the Blind Driver know perfectly well why they gave the contract to Public First. They did it because Cummings wanted to give the contract(s) to people he likes working with.

Cummings has written of how stupid he thinks procurement law is. And (I think) he believes he should be free to spend public money as and with whom he sees fit. He does not see why he should have to adhere to a law he thinks is stupid.

He also knows that (with one exception) there is very little legal sanction if he ignores the law. The Court will declare that Gove (in whose name the contract was awarded) acted unlawfully. But the money can't be taken back from Public First so, so what?

So that's the first reason why (again important to emphasise, I think) Gove is responding to the case in this way: they know we are right, they know they have broken the law, and they literally don't care. The law is for little people, not people like Cummings and Gove.

The second reason is this.

If it could be proven that there was not just *apparent* bias but *actual* bias, ie that they did choose to award the contract to their associates because they thought the law was stupid and didn't apply to them, there might be a meaningful sanction.

In those circumstances you might be in the territory of misconduct in public office - a criminal offence, which does contain meaningful sanction. But the difficulty with misconduct is always the burden of proof: how do you prove it, without hard evidence?

So (and again important to emphasise this is my speculation) there are risks in trying to defend the case on the grounds that the conduct was lawful with an obligation to spell out the detail. And that is why they have taken the course of not really responding to the claim at all

Journalists I have been speaking to about this case will know that I have consistently said I expected the response we got yesterday. They will know that I have said I didn't think there would be any real attempt to defend the illegality. That they would just style it out.

I really, really hope I am wrong. I really hope Gove will come to set out clearly why our contentions of fact and law about the decision to award this contract to Public First are wrong. And that I will have to issue an apology for this thread, that turned out to be inaccurate.

I hope I am wrong because the alternative - that a Cabinet Minister and the Prime Minister's principal political adviser are treating the law, and judicial review, with contempt - is too awful to contemplate. /ENDS