Bringing Down Goliath: How Good Law Can Topple the Powerful

Product Information

Mr Maugham claimed that the bad review of Bringing Down Goliath, which explores a series of high-profile cases brought against the Government by his governance watchdog the Good Law Project, was because of where The Times “stands in relation to my politics”. Anyone on this thread who believes that wasting billions – documented by the government’s own watchdog – on overpriced, unsuitable equipment is a good idea needs to have their heads examined.

By law, the government must publish a summary of any publicly awarded contracts within a certain timeframe. If the government’s experience is anything to go by, the likes of Uber Eats and Deliveroo should probably be looking over their shoulders. Reflecting on this desire to empower others and his personal motivation, Maugham recalls his time in psychotherapy in his late 20s.Thus is the words of BBC’s then Legal Affairs Correspondent, Joshua Rosenberg, “ The Hoffman affair must have done great damage to the International reputation of the English judiciary “. How right he was! We both know I have written to many GC feminists seeking a private discussion of trans issues and to de-escalate the ‘debate’. Stressing that he wants to work from the bottom up, rather than the top-down approach he says Cameron favoured, Maugham describes his ambition to foster legal structures, such as cooperatives and trade unions, to “help people improve the world around them, help them improve their communities”.

Jolyon Maugham KC lashed out after a reviewer said he was “in love with his own prose” and “a first-time author who should not be encouraged to re-offend ever again”.With its headcount also growing – from one employee in January last year to an estimated 25 by the end of this year – Maugham is looking to the future and expanding beyond litigation. When this was revealed, and because of possible accusations of bias, it meant the UNPRECEDENTED setting aside of the House of Lords judgement, because in the words of another Law Lord, Lord Hutton:” public confidence in the integrity of the administration of Justice would be shaken if his Hoffman’s) decision was allowed to stand”. Initially, in turns out that a couple of contracts had been awarded to Tory party donors on terms unfavourable to the government and details not published. A protester outside the Court of Session in Edinburgh, where Maugham argued in October 2019 that Boris Johnson should seek an extension of article 50. Photograph: Andrew Milligan/PA Media

Indeed, the judgment in that case could be seen as paving the way for tighter restrictions on who can bring a claim for Judicial Review, which is the GLP’s modus operandi. The requirement that a claimant has to have a “sufficient interest” in the impugned decision has long been interpreted generously, in favour of campaigning groups and the like. But Maugham’s scattergun shirtiness and unabashed politicising has severely tested that generosity. Lord Reed, now president of the Supreme Court, said in 2012 that “a distinction must be drawn between the mere busybody and the person affected by or having a reasonable concern in the matter”. Thanks to the GLP’s busybodying, successive Lord Chancellors have threatened to tighten up the “sufficient interest” test, in a way that is unlikely to benefit the public. Is this what the Good Law Project is for?The Covid contracts controversy has clearly resonated with the public. This time last year, Maugham says, he was asking Good Law’s director of campaigns if the number of direct debit donors might reach 5,000 by the end of 2020, from fewer than 2,000 at the start of the year and against a target of 3,500. In fact it soared to 11,000, and now there are almost 20,000, he says.