Legal challenges against the establishment

[ska invita]

Not sure if theres enough to warrant a thread but I've noticed a trend recently to bring legal challenges against establishment (for want of a better word) offenders.

The Good Law Project is the most high profile one perhaps. Have they actually got anywhere yet? A slow process I would expect -courts are backed up too. I notice they've started a separate law firm for themselves Good Law Project launches new independent legal firm: ‘Good Law Practice’ - Good Law Project

Today there's this announced case being brought against water regulator, Ofwat, for not monitoring pollution levels.

Activists take water regulator Ofwat to court over sewage in English and Welsh rivers

Environmental group Wild Justice seeks judicial review of Ofwat’s alleged failure to monitor water firms and act on discharges

www.theguardian.com

This is an interesting case because didnt the government vote to actively allow extra river pollution? I've no idea of the finer points of the case.
Its not the first time this type of case has been brought. This was from 2021:
"WWF, the Angling Trust and Fish Legal have renewed their legal challenge over harmful pollution in England’s rivers.
The case, which was first brought to court in 2015, is based on the government’s failure to use ‘Water Protection Zones,’ a regulatory power available since 2009.Despite targets to restore 75% of rivers to Good Ecological Status by 2027, only 14.6% of England’s rivers achieved this status in the latest assessment.

The legal challenge will focus on Defra and the Environment Agency’s failure to comply with a Consent Order, agreed in 2015, requiring action to gather evidence of pollution and plan to protect 37 key sites across England. These sites are protected by law and are some of the most sensitive areas for nature in the country. The government is expected to argue that the Consent Order ‘did not impose a legal obligation the Secretary of State to prepare to Diffuse Water Pollution Plans’ – the three organisations have said they will strongly contest this in court.

Government face court action over river pollution

WWF, the Angling Trust and Fish Legal have renewed their legal challenge over harmful pollution in England’s rivers. The case, which was first brought to court in 2015, is based on the government’s failure to use ‘Water Protection Zones,’ a…

environmentjournal.online

There was another legal challenge different from the above two i heard of this year that sounded interesting but I've completely forgotten what it is.

Anyone have any thoughts on this approach? Plus a thread for news and updates .... Maybe there's long been lots of cases like this brought in the past, but its got to be an expensive approach, one made somewhat more possible with crowdfunding - though even then, Id expect the sums are huge?

 

[platinumsage]

I think the Good Law Project is a Jo Maugham vanity project that is primarily a distraction from actual issues, so I'd definitely focus on all the other cases that aren't promoted so heavily on Twitter.

 

[ska invita]

I think the Good Law Project is a Jo Maugham vanity project that is primarily a distraction from actual issues, so I'd definitely focus on all the other cases that aren't promoted so heavily on Twitter.

the key cases that stick out in my mind were around Brexit - hard to remember what it was now precisely - I think a key victory forced the need for govenrment to vote on the passing of key stages of Brexit bills? My impression was this was how they got started.?

 

[rubbershoes]

Many of these cases are for judicial review. The courts generally can't determine whether government has made a wrong decision. But they can look at whether government failed to follow the right process in reaching a decision, or if what they have done is against the law.

Don't worry, the government is planning to restrict the right to bring judicial review actions. Easier to do that than to actually follow the law

 

[MickiQ]

Considering Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition are currently about as much use as a chocolate teapot I think this sort of thing is broadly a good idea.

 

[pogofish]

I was working with a charity head yesterday - One who brought and succeeded with a fairly well known action against a quite reprehensible aspect of government policy.

Shortly after, they were told to rethink their involvement as an NGO in their specialist area because "The government does not want to contract-out services to bodies with a track record of active campaigning."

Yeah, right..!

 

[kenny g]

It is not just about taking on government but also criminal business activities. The establishment has many arms.

 

[ska invita]

Will come back to the thread properly tomorrow but strikes me legal challenges to government acts are increasingly needed, especially when there is no meaningful party opposition (ironically lead by a "top human rights lawyer").

Prayers for the appeal court on Monday
Cant believe this is happening

UK deportation flight to Rwanda can go ahead, high court judge rules

Judge refuses to grant interim relief after lawyers for asylum seekers argued policy was unlawful

www.theguardian.com

I think I heard there are legal challenges about some of the Covid procurements? I can't believe that isn't a bigger scandal

 

[ska invita]

Many of these cases are for judicial review. The courts generally can't determine whether government has made a wrong decision. But they can look at whether government failed to follow the right process in reaching a decision, or if what they have done is against the law.

Don't worry, the government is planning to restrict the right to bring judicial review actions. Easier to do that than to actually follow the law

interesting point ...
also interesting to see David Davis writing against this

Be warned: this government is robbing you of your right to challenge the state | David Davis

The bill designed to prevent government actions being reconsidered in the courts is un-conservative and undemocratic, says the Conservative MP David Davis

www.theguardian.com

here's an example of judicial review that seems to have at least put a stop for now to an action

Success! UK government concedes lawsuit over £23m NHS ‘data deal' with controversial US tech corporation Palantir - Foxglove

The government has now agreed it cannot allow Palantir to use NHS data for non-Covid matters without asking the public first.

www.foxglove.org.uk

 

[ska invita]

good win here

UK security services must seek approval to access telecoms data, judges rule

Liberty hails decision that prior independent authorisation is needed for people’s communications data

www.theguardian.com

"The security and intelligence services must acquire “prior independent authorisation” to obtain people’s communications data from telecom providers, a civil rights campaign group has said, after it won a high court challenge.

Liberty hailed a “landmark victory” and said two judges ruled it was unlawful for MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain individuals’ communications data from telecom providers without having prior independent authorisation during criminal investigations."

...not sure who they need to get authorisation from though, presume Liberty know whats what

 

[platinumsage]

"without having prior independent authorisation during criminal investigations"

So they only need prior independent authorisation if the access is during a criminal investigation, if it's not part of such an investigation then no such authorisation is needed?

 

[ska invita]

Landmark case in it's seventh year coming close to a ruling from private individual attempting to sue a corporate company for climate change ... If the case is won in favour could set an interesting precedent

Big Read from the FT

Welcome to nginx!

 

[kabbes]

Landmark case in it's seventh year coming close to a ruling from private individual attempting to sue a corporate company for climate change ... If the case is won in favour could set an interesting precedent

Big Read from the FT

Welcome to nginx!

People have been talking about doing this for years in the US. The problem is that there is a general principle that companies who were meeting the full letter of the law in their activities can’t then be sued for things that happened because those laws were insufficient. And US companies are not easily sued outside the US for things they were doing in the US. That’s probably why it’s a German being sued.