Another important decision. This is the full judgment:…

The claim succeeded on Ground 3, about real possibility of bias. Probably the most important ground as it isn't an attack on the specific contract but about the principle of fair administration
What I find so impressive about @GoodLawProject is they are taking an attritional approach - claim after claim all focussed on establishing principles of good administration. Very few public lawyers have the resources and strategic approach to achieve this
It's difficult to explain how difficult it is to bring a single public law case against the government - to find the right case, the enormous funds required to protect your clients... taking this kind strategic approach is almost impossible, but it's getting results.
Much of public noise around judicial review is generated by press and politicians who for various reasons see it as over the top/a nuisance. There is another narrative, though - that it is nowhere near reaching its potential as a means of keeping public authorities within the law
In a proper balance of powers system, the courts are a balance against the executive. Our courts, to date, have played that role almost apologetically and rarely enthusiastically. That is slowly changing and our public sphere will be the better for it.
Good Law Project is a great set up but it should also be an example to others - that the model works, gets results. Better for there to be 10 Good Law Projects so the government cannot paint them as a singular problem
A few people fairly pointing out there are others organisations which do strategic litigation well - of course I agree. I also think that the potential of Judicial Review as a means of holding public authorities to account is greater than currently being achieved...
... One issue which I think is at the heart of this is the costs regime which puts a prospective claimant at risk of tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of costs. I find it bizarre that in personal injury cases claimants are largely protected from such...
... costs orders but in Judicial Review you have to jump through hoops, and wait months, to find out if you can benefit from a protective costs order. I think there is a good argument that there should be an automatic protection in judicial review cases if permission is granted
If there was substantially less costs risk (and perhaps, whisper, if there was a fixed costs regime for all parties) then there wouldn't be so much need for crowdfunding and therefore generating public interest which doesn't always suit the case, or favours only certain causes
I think that @TomRHickman proposed a fixed costs regime for Judicial Review a while back

• • •

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

Keep Current with Adam Wagner

Adam Wagner 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!


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 @AdamWagner1

9 Jun
This reminds me of the 'Jack Bauer fallacy' I sometimes talk about in the context of terrorism. It is correct that the public, in the throes of a crisis, sometimes signal that they want officials to 'throw off the red tape' and 'dispense with niceties to get things DONE'...
... and the most recent example pre COVID was the ticking bomb - you think a suspect has the location... do you torture? The argument for: we will save lives if the torture works. Argument against: we will fall below an essential standard that democratic societies don't torture..
... and you see this argument over public procurement. "Yes of course we broke the rules, wouldn't you have? I had a mate who could provide 200m masks tomorrow, no time for niceties... we saved many lives!" The approach is superficially attractive as how can you argue against...
Read 8 tweets
7 Jun
Here's a legal puzzle in three tweets

"26.—(1) The following Regulations are revoked—
(b)the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel) (England) Regulations 2020 (“the International Travel Regulations”)"…

"(4) Nothing in these Regulations applies in relation to a person who arrived in England before 4.00 a.m. on 17th May 2021 (and accordingly, the regulations mentioned in paragraph (1) continue to have effect in relation to such a person)."

How can regulations both be revoked and continue to have effect?

Or is what is really happening that they have been revoked *except* for people who arrived before 4am on 17 May 2021?

Read 4 tweets
3 Jun
There are many important findings but from a Covid regulations perspective an important one is residents of the barracks were falsely imprisoned because they were told they couldn’t leave the site due to Covid regulations which was a misrepresentation of the law
Full judgment here:…

Could have important consequences for other instances where people have been kept in, for example, student accommodation by misrepresentations of the legal position
Read 5 tweets
25 May
This is strange - no change the law but ‘stealth guidance’ instead…
This is the guidance…
This is the first time, I think, that local guidance has significantly changed without any change to the law. The Steps regulations allow for local areas to be placed into different steps but to date this hasn’t happened.
Read 4 tweets
24 May
Over 35,000 people have been held in hotel detention since 15 Feb when the system was introduced.

Currently over 7,500 people…
The government cannot answer how many people have been given medical exemptions from hotel detention or how many people have asked for them…
I am dealing with lots of cases involving hotel detention at the moment. My sense is the system is a complete mess and the security company which is running the hotels is not able to deal with medical or other difficulties
Read 4 tweets
19 May
There is some confusion over the travel regulations and what has changed (and confusing messaging)

The truth is that policy over international travel has been confused throughout the pandemic, which suggests (to me, based on experience) policy disagreements

The government toyed with the idea that international travel was banned under the various "stay at home" regulations but it was only recently (29 March) when the Steps regulations came into force that international travel without a "reasonable excuse" was explicitly prohibited
The "don't travel outside the UK without a reasonable excuse" law lasted until Monday 18 May, so only about 7 weeks.

Hotel quarantine - though discussed since Feb 2020 - only came into law on 15 February 2021
Read 7 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!