What the thread title says, really 
At last, the government is being held to account for a wrong doing...but it took a good legal team and crowd funding to do it.
From the thread:
Start
“The Secretary of State acted unlawfully by failing to comply with the Transparency Policy” and “there is now no dispute that, in a substantial number of cases, the SoS breached his legal obligation to publish Contract Award Notices within 30 days of the award of contracts.”
The Judge went on to say: “The obligations imposed by reg. 50 (in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015) and by the Transparency Policy and Principles serve a vital public function and that function was no less important during a pandemic. (para 140)
The public "were entitled to see who this money was going to, what it was being spent on and how the relevant contracts were awarded." This was important: “so that oversight bodies such as the NAO, as well as Parliament and the public, could scrutinise and ask questions"
The Judge was also clear our judicial review resulted in the admission of breach by Government, stating it was “secured as a result of this litigation and at a late stage of it” see para 154 in the Judgment:
The Judge also said our Judicial Review sped up the Government’s publishing of contracts: “I have no doubt that this claim has speeded up compliance.” (para 149)
The declaration from the High Court is hugely significant - if Government continues to fail to publish contract award notices within 30 days it is doing so in full knowledge it is breaching the law, and hindering scrutiny.
The Judge concluded: "if the publication had been on time…the First Claimant would have been able to scrutinise CANs and contract provisions, ask questions about them and raise any issues with oversight bodies such as the NAO or via MPs in Parliament" para 158
The judgment has significant implications for the series of further public interest challenges brought by Good Law Project around the Government’s procurement failures. Importantly, the High Court ruled that we had “standing” to bring the challenge.
We have now written to @MattHancock urging him to publish outstanding contracts; come clean about who went through the ‘VIP lane’; to recover money from those who failed to deliver non-compliant product and to undertake a public inquiry into PPE.
End
6https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/1362736288508567555
Oh dear. I did a whole response to that post, Ilovecheese and Gnet has eaten it 
I CBA to do it again...
I'm finding some of the posts on here rather confusing
.
There was no suggestion by the judge that these contracts involved Tory cronyism. That the contracts were given surreptitiously behind closed doors, to 'friends' or as back handers.
The Government failed to disclose the content of the contracts within 30 days of them being signed, being approximately 2 weeks late.
That's it.
Oh, and I don't want Matt Hancock to resign. So far the only thing that I and Keir Starmer are in agreement on.
You are correct, Smileless.
Acting unlawfully is, apparently, not particularly a resigning matter.
I think that the GLP's next judicial review case is more on the 'crony contract' theme.
What has come out of the case just finished is that the GLP is counts as being 'of standing'; i.e they're eligible to pursue these judicial reviews. The government case against them argued that, because the actions of the Minister hadn't caused them any commercial harm, they weren't of sufficient 'standing' to be able to ask for a review.
Why don't you want Hancock to reign? (Are you next in line for a contract? 
)
Mazie.
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »