A week ago we launched our crowdfunder on the crowdjustice page to fund a judicial review of Natural England’s decision to issue the general Licences GL04-06.
Now we have raised over £30,700 of the £36,000 we need to cover our lawyers’ (highly discounted) fees, court costs and the possibility that we may lose the case and have to pay some of NE’s costs.
The response from you all has been phenomenal – over 1000 pledges of financial support. That’s amazing – and our lawyers haven’t ever seen anything quite like it.
Please help us get to our £36,000 target if you can – thank you!
[registration_form]
In the interests of transparency, what’s the identity of the law firm? What is the percentage ‘discount’? Will the proceedings be open to press and public? Or are we only going to hear one side of the argument?
Instead of going down the expensive legal route, what’s wrong with a bit of old-fashioned campaigning?
Then the £36,000 could be spent on a bit of habitat creation – it would pay for a heck of a lot of nestboxes/swift bricks.
James – we’re not in competition with those raising money for habitat creation or Swift nest boxes and we haven’t yet raised £36,000 – although we are getting there. With respect, the discount we have negotiated and agreed is our business.
Court proceedings are normally open to the public but that is up to the court. I trust you aren’t criticising us for telling you about the case in complete contrast to Natural England who haven’t said anything in public about it except giving a naff quote to The Guardian.
The name of our solicitors (for this case) is on the crowdfunding page. And it always will be – we have no problem with transparency.
Taking a legal challenge is only expensive if the other side – Natural England in this case – decide to contest it. It is unclear, nearly 6 weeks after our Pre Action Protocol letter, whether NE is in flight or fight mode! We gave them over a month to concede before starting to raise money for this case. They are mucking about.
Thanks Mark – good that the blog accommodates points of view from allcomers (with various points of view) not just loyalists.