Thread by @StewartWood

An article by @Dannythefink today, on the High Court’s finding that Michael Gove broke the law in awarding a contract to his associates in Public First, has some inaccuracies about facts & the judge's reasoning. A short thread in response. @GoodLawProject

thetimes.co.uk/article/ebaed8…

The finding of “apparent bias” in awarding a contract to Gove’s & Cummings’ associates was not the judge “arguing that precious time should have been spent creating a paper trail”. It was that picking a company run by them without considering alternative providers breaks the law.

Danny also asserts that Dominic Cummings and those who ran Public First “had a political relationship”. But Dominic Cummings described them as his “friends” – not in passing or in a separate context, but in his witness statement to the Court.

Danny says that “normal procurement arrangements might have taken 4 weeks if conducted at a gallop. That was clearly impossible”. Except that the judge explicitly considered this argument. And rejected it.

Plus he does not address the fact that documents that emerged during the course of our legal challenge demonstrated that civil servants involved in procurement – who did not have a friendship with Public First – had concerns about awarding them a contract.

The key question that arises from this case is: How do we ensure public money isn’t channeled to friends of Ministers & their advisers if those allocating it don’t need to explain why they decide to do so? Respectfully, it is about much more than bureaucratic tidiness.

(ends)