BORIS Johnson’s government faces yet another legal challenge, this time over the Prime Minister’s decision to overrule a House of Lords move to block one of his nominations from becoming a peer.
The Tory leader nominated billionaire party donor Peter Cruddas (below) for a seat in the House, and went ahead with the appointment despite objections from the relevant commission (HoLAC).
Just days after Johnson put the peerage through, the donor gave the Tories another £500,000.
The City financier – who has given the party more than £3 million since 2010 – has strongly denied there was any link between the donation and his receipt of a life peerage.
The Good Law Project has now decided to take legal action against Johnson’s nomination.
The organisation’s director, Jolyon Maugham, said: "Despite the House of Lords Appointments Commission advising against it, Boris Johnson made Peter Cruddas a Lord. Just days later, Peter Cruddas donated half a million pounds to the Conservative Party. He threw his money around and now gets to shape laws that affect all of our lives.
"Handing out peerages to party donors who couldn't even pass the vetting process makes a mockery of our democracy. We can't allow it to continue."
READ MORE: Billionaire banker donated £500k to Tories days after becoming a Lord
In their pre-action letter, the campaign group alleges the PM’s nomination was “unlawful because of apparent bias”. They go on: “A fair-minded and informed observer, presented with the facts of the matter, would conclude that there was a real possibility or danger of bias in the defendant’s decision making”.
Johnson was criticised for approving Cruddas’s appointment back in December, after the commission raised “historic concerns in respect of allegations made during Mr Cruddas’s term as treasurer of the Conservative Party, and the judgement reached by the Court of Appeal in subsequent libel action”.
This is understood to be a reference to a court action after Cruddas was filmed discussing donations in a Sunday Times sting nine years ago.
There was “no evidence” rules were broken, the Electoral Commission said, and Cruddas won £180,000 in damages the following year. The damages were reduced in 2015, when part of the ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeal.
The PM defended Cruddas’s appointment, saying the most serious accusations levelled at him “were found to be untrue and libellous”.
The Good Law Project has won several victories over the UK Government this year – and is hoping that this action will lead to a “declaration that the decision to nominate Peter Cruddas for a peerage was unlawful”.
READ MORE: Boris Johnson appoints Tory donor to Lords, taking number of peers to 842
Earlier this week the group’s legal action against Michael Gove saw the High Court rule the minister acted unlawfully in handing a £560,000 contract to market research firm Public First. The judge said there was “apparent bias” in the decision.
A spokesperson for Johnson commented: "All individuals are nominated in recognition of their contribution to society and their public and political service.
"Lord Cruddas has a broad range of experiences and insights across the charitable, business and political sectors which allow him to make a hugely valuable contribution to the work of the Lords."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel