Thread by @GoodLawProject

Today is our judicial review hearing over the Government contract awarded to friends of Dominic Cummings at Public First without competition.

We'll be tweeting live from 10.30am. goodlawproject.org/case/money-for…

We'll be keeping our website updated with the key documents referred to in our barristers' - and the Government's barristers' - submissions. 👇goodlawproject.org/case/money-for…

And we're off!

Our judicial review over the Government contract awarded to friends of Dominic Cummings at Public First without competition has begun.

You can now read the extraordinary skeleton arguments and witness statements on our website. 👇 rebrand.ly/dc-case-tweet

You can read the Government's Statement of Costs - totalling over £508,000 - here.

Government used an incredible 11 solicitors (4 senior solicitors, i.e. over 8 years PQE), 6 junior counsel and 2 QCs. rebrand.ly/d-costs-1502

As a result, Government has incurred £70k of costs communicating with themselves internally - just their lawyers, speaking to themselves. 🤯

Jason Coppel QC opening for us: "Public First was awarded this contract because Dominic Cummings wanted Public First to have this contract...no thought was given to seeking offers from any other provider"

At the time, this work was described by Catherine Hunt (Head of Insight and Evaluation for the PM's Office and Cabinet Office Communication team, which is responsible for commissioning external research) as "tory party research agency tests tory party narrative on public money"

Here's the relationship between Dominic Cummings and Public First - in his own words.

And his views of the other companies in the market research industry in paragraph 8.

We've published his witness statement in full on our website: rebrand.ly/dc-case-tweet

Helen Stratton who was working in the Cabinet Office Covid Communications Hub expressed: "genuine concerns about the way they might be spinning stuff coming out of focus groups - way too close to No 10 to be objective” 👇

"The senior civil servants were in no doubt that the appointment of Public First... was a 'debacle'" - Jason Coppel QC

Eye popping email exchange between senior civil servants worried Public First costs are disproportionately high:

"trying to work out who signs off the £5bn Public First seems to be charging for their services..."

OOF.

Public First and Hanbury were chosen by Michael Gove (CDL = Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) and Number 10 says senior civil servant:

Jason Coppel QC: It's "plainly ridiculous” to denigrate an agency for not having carried out Covid-related work before. Here's the extract from the civil servant's witness statement in question. drive.google.com/file/d/1Fyj0nP…

Jason Coppel QC: “As we understand it, Public First was testing the popularity of the Government’s handling of the pandemic" and this was not urgent work.

🤯This email exchange between senior civil servants:

"I thought we need to keep Public First on to deliver on *ahem* peoples' requirements"

Jason Coppel QC: "There is simply no basis for saying Mr Milland was the only person who was capable of doing this work. The reality is, of course, that none of this was considered at the time. Mr Cummings decided that he wanted Mr Milland and that is what happened."

“The award to Public First gave rise, on any view, to significant concern, we would say consternation, amongst the defendant’s civil servants...the people involved knew that something had gone wrong here. They knew that this was a debacle.” - Jason Coppel QC

"It’s one thing to have a transparent competition where one or some of the decision-makers are familiar with the bidders…but it’s quite another thing to have, as we had in this case, a single decision-maker who is friends with the only provider considered for the work." 🔥 JC QC

Judge O'Farrell: "Of course, where there hasn’t been a competition, there won’t be a disappointed bidder, who might be expected to make the running." - i.e. who could have challenged Government on the lack of open tender💥

"But for this challenge, conduct which has been found wanting by the National Audit Office and by Mr Boardman would never have been scrutinised." - Jason Coppel QC

“In terms of the gravity of the breach, we are concerned here with the most serious type of breach of the public procurement regime. It doesn’t get any worse than this in procurement terms.“ - Jason Coppel QC

"I knew they (Public First) would give us honest information unlike many companies in this sector. Very few companies in this field are competent, almost none are very competent, honest and reliable."

- Dominic Cummings on polling companies🧐rebrand.ly/cummings-ws

A senior civil servant writes: "This agency is the one who are Dom Cummings / Lee Cain's mates, and hence getting all our work with no contract BUT are also spending much money on doing all our ridiculous groups" 😱

The Government's barrister Michael Bowsher QC: “Not right in any sense to characterise this as Dominic Cummings’ decision, albeit that his expertise had a great deal to bear on what was going to happen”.

Government's barrister Michael Bowsher QC: “Whether it was 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 weeks, that was time that was not available on 27th February or 5th March. Government needed to know instantly how its messaging was affecting the behaviour of the population.”

Government's barrister describes the direct contract award to Public First as "a perfectly sensible exercise of discretion." 🧐

"As the contract wasn’t finalised or publicised til June, effectively it was a fait accompli pretty much by then, and therefore in practical terms there would be very few economic operators to bear the risks and expense of a challenge with relatively little to gain by it."- Judge

Sir James Eadie QC on Dominic Cummings: "In this sort of context it is almost inevitable that he would have formed and did form acquaintances with individuals and companies. There is nothing wrong or invidious about that."

Jason Coppel QC reminds the Court that attempts to distance Dominic Cummings from decision-making are at odds with his own evidence:

We believe Government misled the public on how and why their money was spent - and the emails between their own civil servants reveal they share many of our concerns.

The Judge has reserved judgment. So we won't have a result today. But we will of course keep you posted.