On Thursday we filed our detailed grounds and witness statements in our Judicial Review of the Gove/Cummings' decision to award an £840,000 contract to long time associates. We will post the full bundle on Monday but here are some highlights. THREAD

First, witness evidence. The big theme is, people are afraid to challenge this Government's law breaking because they believe they will be punished if they do. Following is evidence given by Anne-Marie Irwin of @ris_law of three individuals she spoke to.

Mrs A. She described the £840,000 contract price as "crazy" and says the award has triggered a massive debate in the industry.

She also goes on to talk about various ways in which £840,000 might be justified but can't justify it.

Mr B. He says £840,000 is an "insane" amount of money but is afraid of putting his head above the parapet by giving evidence in his own name.

Mr C. £840,000 is an "extraordinary" amount of money. "Practically impossible" to get to that sum.

I then give evidence of conversations I have had - around ten - and try to synthesise them.

I say there is incredulity about the price paid. And I quote a well informed source that there is concern that substantial sums of money were paid "without any obvious deliverables."

I diacuss why I understand people have not been prepared to come forward: they fear retaliatory action. And the fact that the individual they think procured the award of the contract to Public First has "a reputation for making life impossible for anyone who stands against him."

I talk about unhappiness in the Cabinet Office about the grant of this contract and a belief amongst some civil servants that the decision to award it was a "political" one.

I say I no longer seriously expect anyone will come forward and my expectation that the most they might do is help me in confidence.

(Did you ever imagine the UK would become a country where whole industries were afraid to ensure the law was upheld?)

Second, we set out why we think the judicial review claim should succeed.

First, we say the Government can't rely on the extreme urgency procedure to get these services. And we point out the Govt has not even bothered to contend otherwise and has breached its duty of candour.

Second, we say (basically) there is never extreme urgency to let a six month contract.

Third, we say there is apparent bias in the grant of this lucrative contract to long time associates of Gove and Cummings. We point out the Government offers no defence to this claim. And, importantly, we reserve our position in relation to whether there might be actual bias.

We are now awaiting detailed directions, including on our request for expedition.

No one else is doing this work. We think it's important. If you would like to support it, or join out mailing list, you can do so here. https://goodlawproject.org/membership/