30th August 2022
Before I became a lawyer, I wanted to be a historian and, in particular, a historian of the concept of the “state”.
The “state” – forgive the quotation marks – is, in one way – something which exists only in the mind, as a label we give certain things around us.
Yet in another way the “state” has a real existence – and some on the left demand “the state should do this” or on the right that “the state should not do that”, both presupposing that something called the “state” exists, and it can be called on to do or not do things.
Some attribute to the “state” the same qualities of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence that some people even now ascribe to various gods (or “gods”).
But.
I did not do the envisaged postgraduate work on intellectual history, and I fell into being a lawyer instead.
And part of the reason was that with law there were debates and discussions about what the “state” should do and not do, and what were its limits, that seemed more practical, urgent and uncertain in their outcomes than in the academic study of political ideas.
Indeed it was a 1996 article about whether the Jockey Club was amenable to judicial review that first started me thinking seriously about a career in advising on public law.
*
Judicial review is the term lawyers in England and Wales give to both procedure and the substance of holding public bodies to account in the courts.
Often what constitutes a public body – such as ministers of the crown or statutory corporations – is obvious.
But the test is functional – if you are an entity exercising a public function then you are amenable to judicial review.
And this means you are subject to certain special legal duties and remedies that may not otherwise be the case.
So it matters – practically – whether you fulfil the test of exercising a public function.
(Related areas of law – such a freedom of information – have fixed lists of what are public bodies and do not have a functional test.)
*
The folk at the Tortoise news and commentary site have decided to send a legal letter threatening an application for judicial review against the Conservative Party.
The letter is worth reading in full.
There are two things worth saying about the letter.
First, the application is what a judge would say is “ambitious”.
Each element of the application is arguable (sometimes only just) – but that an element of a case is arguable certainly does not make it strong.
In essence, that a point is arguable is the test for simply getting it before a tribunal – the minimum required.
Perhaps a positive judge on a sunny day and after a hearty breakfast may give the envisaged claim the judicial thumbs up.
Predicting litigation is never an exact science.
But.
It is unlikely that any court will want to bolt political parties onto the state for the purposes of judicial review – especially when political parties have their own special regulatory regime, and it is the Queen who choses who is invited to be Prime Minister.
The case is likely to fail.
Two, Tortoise has a point – despite the weak legal merits.
A membership-based national political party is conducting an exercise that will lead to the successful candidate being – almost certainly – invited to become Prime Minister and we know very little about how that exercise is being conducted.
(The position would be different if only members of parliament were involved.)
Tortoise are asking for disclosure of the following information:
“(1) Anonymised data you hold on the demographic of the Party’s membership:
(a) Particularly, we invite you to provide, where held, the number of Party members who:
(i) Live abroad;
(ii) Are foreign nationals; and
(iii) Are under voting age.
(b) We also ask you to provide data in respect of:
(i) The age range of members;
(ii) The geographic distribution of members; and
(iii) The genders of members.
(2) An explanation of whether, and if so how, the Party keeps its membership database up to date, ensuring that it sends ballot papers to correct addresses.
(3) Anonymised data you hold on variations in member numbers over time, presented quarterly over the past 10 years. The public interest is particularly acute in respect of quarterly membership numbers for the past twelve months.
(4) An explanation of the Party’s system of compliance, including but not limited to the following questions:
(a) How does the Conservative Party check that new members are who they say they are?
(b) Who oversees compliance? i.e. who independently checks whether the Conservative Party is checking?
(5) What is the number of efforts at infiltration which the Party has thwarted, i.e. how many cases have you discovered of a fictional person, a dead person, a person of non-voting age, a member of another political party or a pet registering as Conservative member?
(6) An explanation of any third party compliance mechanisms in place to ensure that only those eligible to vote do so, that they vote only once each, and that the election is not manipulated.
(7) An explanation of the circumstances by which GCHQ came to offer advice on the distribution of Conservative party ballots.
(8) An explanation of why non-UK citizens who join the party abroad are eligible to vote even if they pay no tax and spend no time in the UK.
(9) Confirmation of whether Party members under the national voting age can vote in the election of Party leader and Prime Minister.”
On the face of it, this is the sort of information which should be in the public domain – and this would apply equally to the Labour Party or other political party in a similar situation.
The (likely) legal fact that judicial review is not the appropriate way of getting such information does not take away from this being information which should be publicly known.
Indeed, that Tortoise is resorting to judicial review indicates – if not demonstrates – that the special regulatory regime for political parties is deficient.
And it is that special regulatory regime that should change – rather than the ambit of judicial review be extended.
Political parties are not private clubs, where there is a limited public interest in their internal affairs.
Political parties are a central feature of our political system.
They are not part of the “state” as such (though views may differ) but they are part of the oil that enable the engines of state to work.
So one can sympathise with the objective of this legal claim, even if one is doubtful of its legal merits.
That objective should be achieved by changes in legislation, and not by judicial expansion.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
The comments policy is here.