Note: This post was substantially updated on 14 February – see below.

Three decades after making his cinematic debut in the 1942 propaganda film One of Our Aircraft is Missing, the actor, writer and legendary raconteur Peter Ustinov starred alongside Joan Sims and Derek Nimmo in the 1975 Disney comedy One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing. And now, half a century later, the tax (avoidance) lawyer, writer and legendary fox-batterer Jolyon Maugham KC has brought us the final part of the trilogy: One of Our Legal Challenges is Missing.

In November 2022, Maugham’s (Not Very) Good Law Project expressed their concern that rules on mandatory voter ID, introduced under the Elections Act 2022, amounted to “generational gerrymandering” as they would “specifically disenfranchise young people”. However, “a legal challenge is unlikely to become viable until the voter ID requirements have been in force during an election when monitoring can be undertaken on the impact across different demographics”.

As late as 4 April 2023, on social media the GLP were reiterating their conclusion that “a legal challenge is unlikely to become viable until the voter ID requirements have been in force during an election”. But just a few weeks later, on 30 April, less than a week before local elections in England on 4 May, they launched a crowdfunder in support of litigation to “protect the voting rights of young people”. The crowdfunder page states:

Good Law Project has obtained legal advice from a legal team led by a specialist King’s Counsel. That advice identifies that there is a sensible legal challenge to be brought to [the voter ID] rules. The precise prospects of success will depend on evidence that is still emerging. But the importance of the right to vote is such that measures that inhibit it cannot go unchallenged.

The Election Act 2022 provides a list of valid government-accepted photo IDs. This list has forms of ID targeted at the older generation, such as a 60+ Oyster Card. However, almost none are for young people, not even the Young Persons Railcard. The consequence will be to inhibit the right to vote for young people. Needless to say, it is young people who are least likely to vote for the Government.

We will monitor the effects and impacts of these discriminatory provisions at the upcoming local elections [on 4 May]. And then we will bring litigation to test the lawfulness of them. Come the next General Election, no one should have their right to vote impeded.

Nine months on, the crowdfunder has raised £35,064 from 1,570 donors (an average donation of £22.33). But the crowdfunder page has never been updated, and there is no evidence of any imminent litigation by the GLP to test the lawfulness of the voter ID rules before the General Election. Yet that General Election could be just weeks away.

On 2 May 2023, in an email sent to some 300,000 supporters and seeking donations to the crowdfunder, the GLP stated:

We have been working with a team of leading barristers on a legal challenge that we intend to bring following the local elections, The [Election Act 2022] provides a list of government-accepted photo IDs to vote with. It has forms of ID targeted at the older generation, but almost none are for young people. Ahead of the next General Election, we want to put an end to the inbuilt discrimination of these rules.

But, there is hope and together we can change this. We believe that we can bring a legal challenge to ensure that by the next General Election participation in our democracy will be fairer for everyone.

On 4 May, the day of the local elections, on X (formerly Twitter), the GLP posted a short video about “why [we] are going to challenge new voter ID rules”. And on 20 May they posted another short video about “our planned legal challenge” to the voter ID rules.

On 23 June, hours after the Electoral Commission published an interim report indicating that some 14,000 people may have been denied a vote in the 4 May local elections by the new voter ID rules, the GLP posted a ‘case update’ on their website, and sent a further email to some 300,000 supporters, describing the 14,000 figure as “shocking but not unexpected” and stating:

Everybody deserves the right to a fair vote. We launched a legal campaign ahead of the local elections to challenge the new voter ID rules because we feared these new rules would discriminate against some voters more than others. Sadly, today’s report demonstrates we were right to be concerned.

We’re planning to bring forward a legal challenge ahead of the next General Election to ensure that the new requirements for photo ID don’t disenfranchise people and deprive them of their democratic rights.

On 25 June, on X (formerly Twitter), the GLP posted: “Over 14,000 people were turned away from the polls in the wake of the Government’s new voter ID rules. We’re bringing legal action on the issue.” On 1 July, posting a link to the crowdfunder, which by then had raised £22,244, the GLP again stated: “We’re bringing legal action on voter ID.” And on 20 July, when revealing data on the number of ‘greeters’ used to enforce the new rules on 4 May, obtained by Freedom of Information requests to local authorities in England, the GLP once again stated:

We’re planning to bring forward a legal challenge ahead of the next General Election to ensure that the new requirements for photo ID don’t disenfranchise people and deprive them of their democratic rights.

On 11 September, a report by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Democracy and the Constitution concluded that the voter ID rules had led to race and disability discrimination on 4 May. And two days later, after the Electoral Commission’s statutory report confirmed its interim findings that some people had found it harder than others to show accepted voter ID, and recommended that the list of allowable ID be reviewed, the GLP stated in a ‘news’ item:

It has always been clear that voter ID is a crude gerrymandering strategy from the Government. We shouldn’t be beating around the bush on this issue when our democracy is being eroded in front of our eyes. It’s time to scrap voter ID once and for all.

We are now gathering evidence for a legal challenge so that, at the next General Election, no-one is denied their right to vote.

On 16 September, by which time the crowdfunder had raised £34,416, the GLP reposted the above ‘news’ item on X (formerly Twitter). And, as far as I can tell, that was the last time the GLP said anything about a “legal challenge ahead of the next General Election”, which many political pundits believe will be held on 2 May – that is, little more than three months from now. And it is hard to see how any legal challenge launched now would conclude within three months (let alone by 26 March, which is when Parliament would be dissolved for a 2 May General Election).

As far as I can tell, the GLP did not even acknowledge – let alone respond to – the publication, on 30 November, of the Government’s response to the Electoral Commission’s statutory report on the 4 May local elections, as well as the Government’s own evaluation of the voter ID rules. Yet in this response to the Electoral Commission, the Government rejected calls for additional types of ID to be added to the list of allowable ID. So one might have expected the GLP to take this opportunity to at least promote the crowdfunder, if not launch their long-trailed legal challenge.

The GLP crowdfunder has certainly not received any new donations since October and, as already noted, it has never been updated to reflect the various developments described above. Yet it remains open to new donations – indeed, it has just accepted my very generous donation of £1.

[Further evidence that the GLP has abandoned the idea of bringing a legal challenge to the voter ID rules ahead of the coming General Election came the day after I published this post, when the GLP launched a new ‘General Election’ crowdfunder in support of a potential application to a County Court in respect of the cookies on an online Tory electioneering gimmick. Because it’s very hard to see how some website cookies are more damaging to democracy than the voter ID rules.]

This failure to update and/or close the crowdfunder page in light of the above – including apparent abandonment of the much-touted plan to bring a legal challenge ahead of the coming General Election – would appear to be a straightforward breach of Rule 3.3 of the Non-Broadcast Code of Advertising Practice (the CAP Code) produced by the Committee of Advertising Practice, the sibling organisation of the Advertising Standards Authority. Rule 3.3 provides that:

Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.

Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product.

The Committee of Advertising Practice has stated explicitly that “individuals or companies seeking donations should be aware that claims made on their pages on crowdfunding websites constitute advertising and are subject to the [CAP] Code.”

A visitor to the GLP’s Voter ID crowdfunding page would have no idea that, having vigorously promoted the crowdfunder and proposed legal challenge for four and a half months, the GLP have been entirely silent on the issue for the last four and a half months, even as the General Election approaches. They would not know about any of the various reports by the Electoral Commission, MPs and the Government that failed to identify any significant evidence of young people being especially disadvantaged or discriminated against by the voter ID rules. And they would have no way of knowing whether the GLP have revised their assessment of the proposed legal claim’s prospects of success.

In short, a visitor to the GLP’s Voter ID crowdfunding page would not have the material information that they need to make an informed decision about whether or not to donate to the crowdfunder.

In One of Our Aircraft is Missing, the plucky six-man crew of the shot-down RAF Wellington bomber eventually make it home from the occupied Netherlands, and are soon flying a new mission over Germany. And, in One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing, the Natural History Museum’s Brontosaurus skeleton is rescued from dastardly Chinese spies by a plucky team of nannies.

But will our plucky King’s Counsel ever find his legal challenge to the voter ID rules?

Update, 29 January: I have now submitted a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority about the misleading nature of the GLP’s Voter ID crowdfunder page, ASA ref: A24-1231151.

Further update, 14 February: Yesterday, with the crowdfunder still at £35,064, the GLP announced on their news pages that the Good Law Practice – the law firm established by the GLP in 2022 – has sent a Pre-action Protocol (PAP) letter before claim to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities; they also promoted the crowdfunder page on X (formerly Twitter) for the first time since September. While the GLP’s announcement notes that “this [legal] challenge is not straightforward”, there is no explicit warning about the proposed claim’s prospects of success. And the Good Law Practice’s PAP letter, dated 9 February, states: “Given the decision in this matter will require an application for judicial review to be filed by the end of February at the latest, we request a reply no later than Monday 19 February 2024”.

According to the Good Law Practice’s PAP letter and the GLP’s announcement, the proposed claimant in the case is ‘Alice’, a “registered voter and transwoman with disabilities, who has no photographic identification”. And paragraph 4 of the PAP letter sets out why ‘Alice’ is unable to obtain photo ID:

However, the PAP letter does not explain why ‘Alice’ is unable to apply (online or on paper) for a (free) Voter Authority Certificate (VAC), which can be used as photo ID when voting at a polling station. Indeed, the VAC scheme is not even mentioned in the 13-page PAP letter.

This is somewhat surprising, given the ease with which an application for a VAC can be made, and the absence of burdensome evidence requirements (such as endorsement by “signatories” who have known the applicant for two years and/or are a “professional person”). All that is needed to apply for a VAC is one’s date of birth and National Insurance number (plus, of course, a photo).

Similarly, the Good Law Practice’s PAP letter does not explain why ‘Alice’ is unable to apply (online) for a replacement CitizenCard (cost: £14). Furthermore, it does not acknowledge that ‘Alice’ could apply for a postal vote, for which no photo ID is needed.

At the very least, it does not seem unreasonable to expect the GLP to have used some of the more than £35,000 they had crowdfunded for this case, as of the date of the Good Law Practice’s PAP letter, to assist ‘Alice’ in making an application for a VAC. Because, were that application to be successful – and there appears to be no good reason why it would not be successful – there would be no need for ‘Alice’ to file a judicial review claim to assert his right to vote. And, under the Pre-action Protocol for Judicial Review, the Good Law Practice is required to “try to settle the issue without proceedings” and “avoid unnecessary expense and keep down the costs of resolving the dispute”. In short, if there is a claimant to bring a sound judicial review challenge to the Voter ID rules, it is not ‘Alice’, so the Good Law Practice has sent a spurious ‘letter before claim’ that taxpayers will have to pay for the Government Legal Department to defend.

Nevertheless, within 24 hours of the GLP’s first post on X linking to the announcement on their news pages, posted at 8:36am, 1,190 people had donated a total of £19,964 to the Voter ID crowdfunder, bringing the total raised since April 2023 to £55,028.

As well as the announcement on the GLP’s ‘news’ pages, on 13 February the GLP also posted a (brief) update on the Voter ID crowdfunder page – the first update to the crowdfunder page since its launch on 30 April 2023. However, the wording of this update (dated 9 February) is misleading:

The words “We’ve issued proceedings” might suggest to prospective donors that the GLP/Good Law Practice have filed a legal claim, but that is not the case. Nothing has been “issued” – the Good Law Practice has simply sent a ‘letter before action’ to the Government Legal Department (GLD). The Civil Procedure Rules clearly state that “Proceedings are started when the court issues a claim form at the request of the claimant”.

In fact, ‘Alice’ is still only a proposed claimant. And, given the profound weakness of the Good Law Practice’s PAP letter – the only proposed claimant is not blocked from voting in the General Election, as he could easily apply for a Voter Authority Certificate, or a postal vote – it is perfectly possible that, when the GLD responds on behalf of the Secretary of State, the GLP/Good Law Practice will quietly drop the proposed claim (or risk adverse costs). But it seems likely that many of the 1,190 people who donated an average of £16.78 to the crowdfunder on 13-14 February did so without reading the Good Law Practice’s PAP letter, and without understanding that there are not (yet) active legal proceedings.

[Update: On or about 18 February, the GLP amended the misleading wording of the update to the crowdfunder page, removing the word ‘proceedings’. Yet on 17 February the GLP used a similarly misleading phrase – “We’ve launched legal proceedings” – in a social media post about another case in which the Good Law Practice has merely sent a ‘letter before claim’.]

Furthermore, the update to the crowdfunder page does not include the statement in the GLP’s announcement that “this [legal] challenge is not straightforward”. Indeed, the crowdfunder page does not give prospective donors an updated assessment of the proposed claim’s prospects of success.

In short, the GLP’s announcement on their news pages on 13 February, their promotion of that announcement on X (formerly Twitter), and their brief update to the crowdfunder page appear to amount to a further breach of Rule 3.3. of the CAP Code of Advertising Practice, in that prospective donors have not been presented in a clear, intelligible and unambiguous manner with all the material information they need to make an informed decision about whether to donate to the crowdfunder.

Prior to 13 February, the crowdfunder had not received any donations since October (other than my £1 donation on 21 January). But since 8:36am on 13 February, the crowdfunder has now received donations totalling £22,616 from 1,332 donors. And, had they been properly and correctly informed about the circumstances of ‘Alice’ (including the options available to ‘Alice’ of obtaining a Voter Authority Certificate or postal vote), the action taken by the Good Law Practice, and the proposed claim’s prospects of success, at least some of those 1,332 donors may have decided not to donate, or to donate a smaller amount than they did.

Accordingly, I have updated/renewed my complaint to the ASA/CAP (ASA ref: A24-1233740); and I have submitted a complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority about Lochlinn Parker, the managing partner of Good Law Practice.