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.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Good Law Project

Good Law Project Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GoodLawProject

3 Feb
Jason Coppel QC is taking the Court through our skeleton argument now: THREAD
“In a claim about the transparency of government spending, the Claimants find it astonishing that the Defendant has filed a statement of costs of over £200,000 for a one-day JR in which a significant part of the breaches alleged are admitted.”
We believe transparency is fundamental to ensuring public money is well spent. The @NAOorguk 'Investigation into Government procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic' backs up our concerns - para 3.24: nao.org.uk/wp-content/upl…
Read 26 tweets
3 Feb 20
Almost a year ago we sued HMRC for failing to assess Uber to - we believe - substantially in excess of £1bn of VAT. /1
After we sued it HMRC asked the High Court for permission to tell us what it then did about Uber's tax bill - permission the High Court gave. /2
Uber appealed and the Court of Appeal has now decided to hear - and expedited - Uber's appeal against the High Court decision. /3
Read 6 tweets
23 May 19
So we sought, have now obtained, and will soon pay for, urgent legal advice from specialist election law Counsel. But the advice, I am afraid, is rather discouraging. THREAD
The starting point is to identify legal failures by the returning officer.

Even this stage of the exercise is likely to be difficult because the returning officer is very likely to have an audit trail justifying their decisions to post on date x or use service y. /1
But it gets worse still. Even if you are able to identify legal failures you then have to show an effect on the outcome of the election for the election to be voided and re-run. /2
Read 8 tweets
26 Mar 19
At 11am today our Serious Shortage Protocols Judicial Review returns to the High Court for an oral hearing.
The issue is whether the Government's 'Serious Shortage Protocols,' which enable pharmacists to substitute what your doctor prescribed with a different drug or dosage or delivery mechanism to cope with serious shortages on No Deal, are lawful. More here. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
The issue is of profound concern to many who rely on prescription drugs or treatments to stay alive. (For scale almost half of us regularly take prescription medicines although mostly to deal with conditions that are not life threatening.)
Read 10 tweets
19 Mar 19
An update on our judicial review of serious shortage protocols.

Yesterday we learned that the High Court had refused permission to appeal. You can read the refusal here d2l6cjylzkj2qa.cloudfront.net/wp-content/upl…
We are not in the habit of criticising decisions of the Court but we think the reasoning is very poor and we have asked the Court for an urgent oral permission hearing. We will, of course, keep you updated.
We are also concerned that the permission decision was made on Friday and the Govt seems to have been told on Friday (see this extract from a debate yesterday about serious shortage protocols hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-0…) but when we spoke to the Court on Friday it refused to tell us.
Read 6 tweets
6 Mar 19
Earlier today we wrote to HMRC with a formal threat to issue judicial proceedings if they continue to refuse to issue VAT assessments against Uber to protect what we believe to be over £1,000,000,000 of unpaid VAT. /1
This is money we desperately need to fund schools and hospitals and other vital services. And the reasons HMRC have given for refusing to raise assessments just don't stack up in law. /2
We won't stand by and watch as the UK becomes a place where the poor and the powerless and small businesses get a hostile environment and the wealthy and powerful get the red carpet.

You can support our work here: goodlawproject.org/membership/ /3
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!