Good Law Project - who are they?
Discussion
essexd said:
I seem to remember reading somewhere that they are a good cause, but that it would be a waste of time because the goverment could spend so much time delaying any releases both internally and in the courts, that by the time anything came out, it would be long forgotten.
I disagree that seeking greater transparency as to the award of contracts by Government would be a waste of time. It is often worth pressing for disclosures, and eventually they may have impact. See for example Thalidomide, Watergate, and (not quite as serious) Prince Charles' spidery letters.I don't know, same as you.
But what we can see in public seemed to me to be fairly clear cut.
There were repeated warnings about insufficient reserves: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/06/ki...
(The Guardian I perceive to hardly be a right-wing "nail the kiddie charity" paper)
The NAO had many concerns for many years: https://www.nao.org.uk/report/investigation-the-go...
But the item which drove my statement is that there was a Ministerial Directive to override the civil servant's concerns and provide extra funds to the charity. Guess who signed it? Matt Hancock!
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
I am obviously not a judge, I don't even play one on TV, but as you can see above the charity collapsed after many years of requiring emergency grants and the civil servants responsible for managing the allocation of those grants kept raising concerns and were overruled by ministers.
With the same person doing the PPE contracts etc. being the one who overruled his civil servants to hand out the money and the directors of the collapsed charity being exonerated I can't help but suspect that any court case around the PPE contracts will have the exact same result.
But what we can see in public seemed to me to be fairly clear cut.
There were repeated warnings about insufficient reserves: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/06/ki...
(The Guardian I perceive to hardly be a right-wing "nail the kiddie charity" paper)
The NAO had many concerns for many years: https://www.nao.org.uk/report/investigation-the-go...
But the item which drove my statement is that there was a Ministerial Directive to override the civil servant's concerns and provide extra funds to the charity. Guess who signed it? Matt Hancock!
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
I am obviously not a judge, I don't even play one on TV, but as you can see above the charity collapsed after many years of requiring emergency grants and the civil servants responsible for managing the allocation of those grants kept raising concerns and were overruled by ministers.
With the same person doing the PPE contracts etc. being the one who overruled his civil servants to hand out the money and the directors of the collapsed charity being exonerated I can't help but suspect that any court case around the PPE contracts will have the exact same result.
Flooble said:
I don't know, same as you.
But what we can see in public seemed to me to be fairly clear cut.
...
I didn't know, but I do now, because I have (speed) read the judgment. Have you?But what we can see in public seemed to me to be fairly clear cut.
...
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2021/175.h...
What you may have seen in the media is not the same as what is now available to be seen in public via the public trial and public judgment.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 13th February 12:51
I have now, thanks for the link. That was hard work and I admit to not following large chunks of it, nor having the education knowledge and experience to understand the references within (had I followed and read up on every single cross reference I would not be done until 2030).
The judge doesn't seem particularly impressed with the official receiver.
The evidence in that judgement is confusing to me as a layperson.
It acknowledges that the charity kept getting in arrears with HMRC (e.g. para 318) and mentions the need for advances on grants from government to pay off debts (e.g. Para 832). Para 833 makes it sounds as though they had a bit of a perfect storm with a general election disrupting the government cash handouts and some expected donations not turning up at the same time; the judge also states that the restructuring would have succeeded if the child abuse allegations (that were disproved) had not prevented fundraising. Obviously I have to defer to those who have waded through tens of thousands of pages of material and have the experience and education to understand it but I find it confusing that with all the track record of nearly going under many times it is stated that had it not been for the press stories they would come out the storm unscathed.
In terms of the actual judgement I can understand (and agree) that there was insufficient evidence of dishonesty and that the track record of receiving emergency grants (and write-offs of debts to creditors) would give the trustees every expectation that they would be bailed out again. So I can see why the judge did not accept the case for disqualification and I'd agree.
But the charity, reading that judgement as a layperson, sounds as though it was always operating on the edge of going under. Maybe all charities are like that. I suppose they are, in the sense that donations are highly variable and it would go against the instinct of a charity to hoard cash rather than helping those in need.
So the question is still really whether Matt Hancock was right to overrule his civil servants and fire another £3 million at the charity as it was about to go under. The judge's ruling ("they would have survived without the child abuse allegations") seems to suggest he was. Which implies that similar findings will be likely around PPE contracts, that he made the right decision with each of them.
The judge doesn't seem particularly impressed with the official receiver.
The evidence in that judgement is confusing to me as a layperson.
It acknowledges that the charity kept getting in arrears with HMRC (e.g. para 318) and mentions the need for advances on grants from government to pay off debts (e.g. Para 832). Para 833 makes it sounds as though they had a bit of a perfect storm with a general election disrupting the government cash handouts and some expected donations not turning up at the same time; the judge also states that the restructuring would have succeeded if the child abuse allegations (that were disproved) had not prevented fundraising. Obviously I have to defer to those who have waded through tens of thousands of pages of material and have the experience and education to understand it but I find it confusing that with all the track record of nearly going under many times it is stated that had it not been for the press stories they would come out the storm unscathed.
In terms of the actual judgement I can understand (and agree) that there was insufficient evidence of dishonesty and that the track record of receiving emergency grants (and write-offs of debts to creditors) would give the trustees every expectation that they would be bailed out again. So I can see why the judge did not accept the case for disqualification and I'd agree.
But the charity, reading that judgement as a layperson, sounds as though it was always operating on the edge of going under. Maybe all charities are like that. I suppose they are, in the sense that donations are highly variable and it would go against the instinct of a charity to hoard cash rather than helping those in need.
So the question is still really whether Matt Hancock was right to overrule his civil servants and fire another £3 million at the charity as it was about to go under. The judge's ruling ("they would have survived without the child abuse allegations") seems to suggest he was. Which implies that similar findings will be likely around PPE contracts, that he made the right decision with each of them.
I think that you are making a massive leap there The cases about the contracts are very different from the Kids Company case. The contracts cases will turn on the evidence in those cases. The Kids Company case was not about whether the Government acted improperly or carelessly, but whether the charity had been so badly run that individuals associated with it should be disqualified from being company directors.
They're looking to hire a Public Law Litigator:
https://goodlawproject.org/news/hiring-public-law-...
https://goodlawproject.org/news/hiring-public-law-...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff