Journal editorial April 2023
Crowdfunding is one of the features of our age. From sponsorship challenges to specialist medical treatment, the internet has made possible what in former times would have taken someone promoting a cause great persistence, publicity and probably luck to bring about.
What works for others is making its presence felt in the justice field, too. Crowdfunded litigation is growing in popularity, and online platforms now exist to help individuals and groups raise funds for actions that would otherwise be well beyond their means.
Such schemes could be open to abuse, but platforms have reputations to protect and should set out clearly what happens to money donated, depending on the outcome. With a cause that attracts sympathy, that could mean a lot of work. I know of at least one litigant who kept meticulous records, contacted each supporter from time to time with a progress update, and when partial recovery was finally achieved, offered the choice of a part refund or a donation to one of selected causes.
Whether or not everyone in that position takes such trouble, mass movement litigation must on balance be a good thing, particularly if it is the only means of effectively holding to account the Government or other large organisation, public or private.
No doubt, especially in the public law sphere, it comes as an unwelcome development for those who find themselves defending such actions; and quite possibly it leads to the courts having to rule on novel and contentious matters. Neither factor is a legitimate reason for putting obstacles in the way of otherwise arguable cases brought in the public interest.
It is therefore concerning to hear, as you can read in our lead feature, that the Good Law Project, which among a range of cases has enjoyed some success in bringing to light matters of doubtful legality that the UK Government had sought to keep from scrutiny, has recently found the courts unwilling to entertain fresh actions in its name. That after hints by the now Prime Minister that the law on standing would be changed unless the courts clamped down on it.
Why should citizens not be able to challenge the Government where the legality of its actions is in issue? Apart from the question whether politicians are putting improper pressure on our independent judiciary, as is pointed out it is usually not difficult anyway to find another party with sufficient interest to support as a litigant in the cause.
In a less unequal society it might be easier to hold public bodies to account without having to rely on the collective efforts of private individuals making small donations. As it is, we should be grateful that there exists some means of applying the rule of law to all, great or small – as there must if the term is to mean anything.