wanderlust wrote:Even reminding the government that their actions are under scrutiny so they can't ride roughshod over the law is a success in itself.
They have applied for 14 judicial reviews of which 11 were granted at the first time of asking i.e. 78% compared to the average of 10%.
GLP's objective is to ensure the law is upheld. The Government has broken the law on many occasions. GLP are not out to "prove any form of sleaze or cronyism" - sleaze and cronyism are terms extrapolated from their actions and not defined in law as an offence per se therefore no court would grant a JR if that's what they stated they were attempting to prove - so I don't get the point you are making.
For analogy: Jimmy Savile was a bastard, but being a bastard isn't a crime you can be convicted of as such. Paedophilia is.
It's not the job of a private company - for that is what GLP is - to scrutinise the government - we have Parliament to do that.
I'd take with a pinch of salt GLP's claims as they put a great deal of spin on what they say.
They may well have had 11 JR's granted but how many have actually ended up in court - just 4 apparently - and even TROY doesn't seem to know what two of them are!
Judicial Reviews, as I have pointed out many times now, are there simply to rule on if a law has been administered correctly and if found not to have been done so, to basically instruct the entity (the government in GLP's JR's cases) to do so in future.
The only two JR's that I'm aware they won was one where the government didn't advertise contract awards within 28 days and the other where they 'looked dodgy' (not that they were proved to be so!).
How is that 'scrutinising' the government?
Hardly proved anything at all really did they in those two 'successful' JR verdicts for them - the first was openly admitted to by the government before being to taken to court - their defence was that dealing with the pandemic took precedence over tidying up the paperwork to meet a timescale that took no account for a worldwide pandemic - and the second was absolutely meaningless in any real sense - and why that judgement has been appealed.
And when anyone has to bring the likes of Jimmy Saville or Adolph Hitler in to backup their internet argument, then you know they don't really have much of a case to present.