Mmmm Did you read the Good Law Project judgment before writing the above? From my reading of it the Cabinet Office did have scope to consider in a very short time another company they had worked/were working with as well as Public First.
Yes, I did read the judgment before writing my article – some parts, I’ll admit, more carefully than others!
I’m not sure how your comment relates to my piece. I was careful not to take a position on whether I agreed with the judge regarding apparent bias. For the purposes of my article, it doesn’t matter whether I agree with her or not. My point was that, in the circumstances of this case, a bit of bias might be a good thing. So the appearance of bias doesn’t worry me. (And, by implication, if the law is against apparent bias, perhaps the law needs a bit of a tweak.)
The real focus of my challenge is the people at the Good Law Project, who seem to think it will improve public policy if, in future pandemics, government contracts are hamstrung in the way they had wanted, including the first two heads of claim in which, fortunately, the judge found against GLP.
@Simon, thanks for making me think it through more ;-)
You say "My point was that, in the circumstances of this case, a bit of bias might be a good thing.". As a taxpayer for me it depends on the motivation/cause of any bias. Until all the evidence was known and examined in court this was unknown and it could not be known for certain if the first two heads of claim were of merit or not.
So I beg to differ with your comment, "in future pandemics, government contracts are hamstrung in the way they [GLP] had wanted,". In my view GLP's motivation was to ensure that even in these time critical contracts there had been a fair use of taxpayers money: not that they wanted the first two heads to have been true.
The judgment at [159]-[163] gives five reasons as to why the judge rejected the Cabinet Office's submission that on the third head they had no option but to appoint Public First.
The judge concludes, "However, the Defendant’s failure to consider any other
research agency, by reference to experience, expertise, availability or capacity, would
lead a fair minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility,
or a real danger, that the decision-maker was biased." at [168].
At [178] the judge concluded, "In my judgment the Claimant [Good Law Project] has sufficient interest in bringing this judicial review to establish standing." and then at [179]-[181] gives three reasons.
As a taxpayer I'm grateful to GLP for testing that proper process had been carried out.
As the judge observed, "179. Firstly, the Claimant is a non-governmental organisation with expertise and experience in holding the Government to account in respect of its public procurement decisions. It has a sincere interest in promoting good public administration, including compliance with the PCR 2015 and lawful conduct of the public procurement regime. It has no ulterior motive in pursuing the challenge."
Mmmm Did you read the Good Law Project judgment before writing the above? From my reading of it the Cabinet Office did have scope to consider in a very short time another company they had worked/were working with as well as Public First.
@Christopher, many thanks for commenting.
Yes, I did read the judgment before writing my article – some parts, I’ll admit, more carefully than others!
I’m not sure how your comment relates to my piece. I was careful not to take a position on whether I agreed with the judge regarding apparent bias. For the purposes of my article, it doesn’t matter whether I agree with her or not. My point was that, in the circumstances of this case, a bit of bias might be a good thing. So the appearance of bias doesn’t worry me. (And, by implication, if the law is against apparent bias, perhaps the law needs a bit of a tweak.)
The real focus of my challenge is the people at the Good Law Project, who seem to think it will improve public policy if, in future pandemics, government contracts are hamstrung in the way they had wanted, including the first two heads of claim in which, fortunately, the judge found against GLP.
@Simon, thanks for making me think it through more ;-)
You say "My point was that, in the circumstances of this case, a bit of bias might be a good thing.". As a taxpayer for me it depends on the motivation/cause of any bias. Until all the evidence was known and examined in court this was unknown and it could not be known for certain if the first two heads of claim were of merit or not.
So I beg to differ with your comment, "in future pandemics, government contracts are hamstrung in the way they [GLP] had wanted,". In my view GLP's motivation was to ensure that even in these time critical contracts there had been a fair use of taxpayers money: not that they wanted the first two heads to have been true.
The judgment at [159]-[163] gives five reasons as to why the judge rejected the Cabinet Office's submission that on the third head they had no option but to appoint Public First.
The judge concludes, "However, the Defendant’s failure to consider any other
research agency, by reference to experience, expertise, availability or capacity, would
lead a fair minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility,
or a real danger, that the decision-maker was biased." at [168].
At [178] the judge concluded, "In my judgment the Claimant [Good Law Project] has sufficient interest in bringing this judicial review to establish standing." and then at [179]-[181] gives three reasons.
As a taxpayer I'm grateful to GLP for testing that proper process had been carried out.
As the judge observed, "179. Firstly, the Claimant is a non-governmental organisation with expertise and experience in holding the Government to account in respect of its public procurement decisions. It has a sincere interest in promoting good public administration, including compliance with the PCR 2015 and lawful conduct of the public procurement regime. It has no ulterior motive in pursuing the challenge."