THE CASE WITHDRAWN WHEN THE EVIDENCE ARRIVED

In March 2021, Good Law Project accused the Government of using its £4.8 billion Levelling Up Fund to advance the Conservative Party’s electoral interests.

The organisation said the evidence suggested that prosperous areas represented by Conservative MPs were being prioritised over poorer Labour constituencies. Its article described this as “pork-barrel politics on a grand scale” and suggested public money was being misappropriated to private political ends.

Good Law Project subsequently brought judicial-review proceedings against the Government. Its decision was partly informed by a message attributed to a senior Cabinet Office source, received through an intermediary. According to that account, officials had faced enormous ministerial pressure to favour Conservative or winnable marginal seats and the published criteria were “fake and last-minute.”

In August 2021, the High Court granted permission for the claim to proceed. Good Law Project celebrated the decision publicly, saying that the Government would now have to defend itself in court. It used the announcement to promote what it called its “staggering 78%” success rate in securing permission for judicial review.

Permission was not a finding that the allegations were true. It allowed the claim to advance so that the evidence and legal arguments could be examined.

That examination never happened.

Following disclosure by the Government, Good Law Project announced in January 2022 that it was withdrawing the case. It acknowledged that the disclosed documents “tell a different story” from the account on which its campaign had partly relied.

When asked to support the allegation, the Cabinet Office source declined to provide corroboration. GLP’s lawyers advised that, based on the disclosed material, the challenge had low prospects of success. The organisation concluded that spending further money on the case would be irresponsible.

Withdrawal did not prove that the Levelling Up Fund was well designed or free from political considerations. The scheme continued to face legitimate criticism over its methodology, delivery and distribution. Nor did withdrawal produce a judgment exonerating the Government.

But it did expose the distance between campaigning language and tested evidence. Allegations of misappropriating billions of pounds had been presented publicly before the underlying account was corroborated. When documents became available, the organisation bringing the case accepted that they contradicted its original narrative and walked away.

Good Law Project had announced that it was going to court. The evidence ensured that it never got there.

SOURCES