Earlier in this thread I was called an idiot multiple times for suggesting an MP could have any influence over the awarding of a contract.
But the Court found that Gove’s:
“failure to consider any other research agency… 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” (paragraph 168).
I’ll wait for your admission of fault Sluffy…
The Judge stated -
"There is no suggestion of actual bias in this case
. The allegation is that the circumstances in which the contract was awarded to Public First gave rise to apparent
(Point 136 on page 34)
Nothing untoward or illegal was found.
The ruling was that the civil servants in the mist of the first wave of the pandemic omitted to do in effect a box ticking exercise.
Gove as an individual or MP had no say the the awarding of the contract - fact.
As head of the Department he is held accountable for the civil servants in it - that is why 'he' is held to be guilty - not because he as an individual is guilty.
I called you what I did on this thread because you DID NOT KNOW that it is civil servants that award contracts NOT MP's.
The judge was required to examine the civil servants actions and compare them to what Public Law required them to do. The only thing in the whole case she found for the claimant (and they had filed numerous issues) was a failure to 'ring around' a few agencies to see if they could do some 'specialised' work that they already had Public First working on (and which at that time even the judge agreed they were doing so legally!).
It was a simple error that was made - no more no less - and to put it into context it was made some time following the first weeks of the pandemic and initial lockdown!
Gove DIDN'T influence the contract, there was/is no cronyism to be found in the awarding of the contract - so I still stand by what I've said.
Gove has got the his knuckles rapt for his civil servants error of omission not for any influencing of contracts you seem to be alleging he has done.
I note however that your mate Maugham is certainly not presenting the facts of the matter as they actually are though - he's loving it!!!
Fwiw GLP sought from the judge that she rule the Public First contract unlawful - she rejected this and threw that claim out.
They sought to quash the contract (in other words void it and make it illegal) again she rejected this and threw it out.
Do you think she would have done those things if she had grounds to believe the contract was awarded illegally to Gove's crony's???
The only part of the judgement that was won was that in the mist of a global pandemic someone forgot to say, you know how we've been using Public First in March and April during the first lockdown and they've done all this urgent work for us, shouldn't we now phone around a couple more agency's to see how they are fixed to do some for a change?
The obvious thinking would have been stick with what we have if we have been happy with them - what's the point in bringing someone new in now?
For the sake if a paper trail and Potemkin thinking (as Cummings phrases it) to save us from a Judicial Review, that is what they SHOULD have done.
They didn't and that is simply why GLP won the case 'because it might
look a bit dodgy' - and not that it was dodgy at all.
No smoking gun.
Gove won't resign.
The civil servants won't be sacked.
The contract won't be voided.
No one will make a claim on the government.
There will be no police case...
...the only effect of the case is GLC/Maugham embarrassing the government and the ongoing eroding public confidence in the state.
And that is exactly the goal the Maugham wanted.