The High Court has ruled that Government has acted unlawfully by failing to disclose details of Covid-related contracts, in breach of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and its own guidance.
“The Secretary of State acted unlawfully by failing to comply with the Transparency Policy” and “there is now no dispute that, in a substantial number of cases, the SoS breached his legal obligation to publish Contract Award Notices within 30 days of the award of contracts.”
The Judge went on to say:
“The obligations imposed by reg. 50 (in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015) and by the Transparency Policy and Principles serve a vital public function and that function was no less important during a pandemic. (para 140)
“The Secretary of State spent vast quantities of public money on pandemic-related procurements during 2020. The public were entitled to see who this money was going to, what it was being spent on and how the relevant contracts were awarded.” (para 140)
The public "were entitled to see who this money was going to, what it was being spent on and how the relevant contracts were awarded."
This was important: “so that oversight bodies such as the NAO, as well as Parliament and the public, could scrutinise and ask questions"
The Judge was also clear our judicial review resulted in the admission of breach by Government, stating it was “secured as a result of this litigation and at a late stage of it” see para 154 in the Judgment: drive.google.com/file/d/19QsmLv…
The Judge also said our Judicial Review sped up the Government’s publishing of contracts: “I have no doubt that this claim has speeded up compliance.” (para 149) drive.google.com/file/d/19QsmLv…
The declaration from the High Court is hugely significant - if Government continues to fail to publish contract award notices within 30 days it is doing so in full knowledge it is breaching the law, and hindering scrutiny.
The Judge concluded: "if the publication had been on time…the First Claimant would have been able to scrutinise CANs and contract provisions, ask questions about them and raise any issues with oversight bodies such as the NAO or via MPs in Parliament" para 158
The judgment has significant implications for the series of further public interest challenges brought by Good Law Project around the Government’s procurement failures.
Importantly, the High Court ruled that we had “standing” to bring the challenge.
We have now written @MattHancock urging him to publish outstanding contracts; come clean about who went through the ‘VIP lane’; to recover money from those who failed to deliver non-compliant product and to undertake a public inquiry into PPE. drive.google.com/file/d/1zihISY…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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
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…
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
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.)
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.