‘Crowd funded’ judicial review?
- Thread starter palmer_mike
- Start date
Orion
Well-Known Member
That's easy to answer: Wild Justice - Crowd Justice
My mental maths may not be up to speed these days, but I'll hazard a guess that £36k is a fair bit less than the oft quoted £8m that is said to be sloshing around in the coffers of a certain organisation that allegedly speaks for all shooters (except of course when it goes bandy and then it's 'members only').
That's easy to answer: Wild Justice - Crowd Justice
My mental maths may not be up to speed these days, but I'll hazard a guess that £36k is a fair bit less than the oft quoted £8m that is said to be sloshing around in the coffers of a certain organisation that allegedly speaks for all shooters (except of course when it goes bandy and then it's 'members only').
Yep with you all the way, but £36k is a lot less than the £2mill someone on here quoted. BASC will never fork out for us mere mortals, one of my many reasons for leaving years ago.
Last edited:
Orion
Well-Known Member
I’ll tell you something. After quitting in disgust some years ago I thought it only fair to join them if I was intending to criticise the organisation, which I did mid last year on a monthly direct debit. After 3 copies of the comic and a few emails informing me about discounts on high end vehicles and shotguns, and courses for ‘Young Shots’, I realised that the leopard is unlikely to ever change it’s spots unless there’s a major upheaval in membership numbers. Same old, same old, so I cancelled the DD and left.
Mick Miller
Well-Known Member
I miss the Chelsea Bun Club, used to love reading the latest installment of that.
Free range rob
Well-Known Member
The wheels are turning.
When will the Worm??????????
Count me in.
Would it not be better to tackle just one police division (the one with the most stringent conditions) then if found to be wrong warn all the others that a JR will be raised and seeing as already found with X force will go against them if challenged?
Apologies to Mike Palmer as he has already said this, missed the post first time around.
Would it not be better to tackle just one police division (the one with the most stringent conditions) then if found to be wrong warn all the others that a JR will be raised and seeing as already found with X force will go against them if challenged?
Apologies to Mike Palmer as he has already said this, missed the post first time around.
Last edited:
There is always more than one way to skin a cat.
There are over 800,000 licenses issued in the UK, 150,000 of them are Basc members, this organisation will only listen to its members and rightly so, but if there was enough of a push by members towards a Judicial Review then they would have to make representations..
If they did not then there is the opportunity for misrepresentation of its members and make a legal challenge accordingly via its own legal cover..
I think you would have a better chance with that than a JR against the Police.
Having been on the inside workings of BASC for 5 years it was always a challenge to try and get them to think outside the box, we had several schemes going that required just that and there were forever getting kicked into the long grass,we need a review we need a consultation etc, spent thousands on Consultants and it never went anywhere..So I think unless there is a challenge by the majority of members you are wasting your breath..
There is another solution, if there is enough momentum for this then why not set up your own organisation and take out legal cover to cover such a challenge..
As Caorach has mentioned if a Judicial Review is granted then be under no illusion of the consequences, the establisment will fight the dirtiest of fights you have ever seen,if you lose then there is cost implication if you win against the Police to recover costs you would have to show they were somewhat negligent or unreasonable, again another cost implication to prove such.
Now I am not trying to pour water on the fire, but in my opinion there are other easier routes..
regards
N
There are over 800,000 licenses issued in the UK, 150,000 of them are Basc members, this organisation will only listen to its members and rightly so, but if there was enough of a push by members towards a Judicial Review then they would have to make representations..
If they did not then there is the opportunity for misrepresentation of its members and make a legal challenge accordingly via its own legal cover..
I think you would have a better chance with that than a JR against the Police.
Having been on the inside workings of BASC for 5 years it was always a challenge to try and get them to think outside the box, we had several schemes going that required just that and there were forever getting kicked into the long grass,we need a review we need a consultation etc, spent thousands on Consultants and it never went anywhere..So I think unless there is a challenge by the majority of members you are wasting your breath..
There is another solution, if there is enough momentum for this then why not set up your own organisation and take out legal cover to cover such a challenge..
As Caorach has mentioned if a Judicial Review is granted then be under no illusion of the consequences, the establisment will fight the dirtiest of fights you have ever seen,if you lose then there is cost implication if you win against the Police to recover costs you would have to show they were somewhat negligent or unreasonable, again another cost implication to prove such.
Now I am not trying to pour water on the fire, but in my opinion there are other easier routes..
regards
N
I always wondered why WJ set up as a limited company, is it perhaps to protect themselves against massive costs being awarded against them as the company will have no assets and therefore would just go into administration?
Quite an informative document A guide to JR
s2 on page 4 and the paragraph at the top of page 9 very interesting Also the section on potential costs and the crowdjustice reference
en.wikipedia.org
S
s2 on page 4 and the paragraph at the top of page 9 very interesting Also the section on potential costs and the crowdjustice reference
CrowdJustice - Wikipedia
S
Actually, they have registered as a company limited by guarantee, which offers them similar protection
"A company limited by guarantee does not usually have a share capital or shareholders, but instead has members who act as guarantors. The guarantors give an undertaking to contribute a nominal amount (typically very small) in the event of the winding up of the company. "
Worth a read
publicregulatoryblog.fieldfisher.com
Statutory regime introduced for cost capping orders in judicial review
EU Regulatory Bulletin May 2012
publicregulatoryblog.fieldfisher.com
An excellent find and very relevant since we are looking to JR a public body whose costs we can seek to avoid through this process - fits neatly between pre-action protocol letter, judicial confirmation of 'leave to proceed' and the main case.Worth a read
Statutory regime introduced for cost capping orders in judicial review
EU Regulatory Bulletin May 2012
Thanks.
That’s simple what he supports is pink and fluffy!
people will always throw money and animals or half dead animals, that’s a fundraising fact.
We kill animals and it’s not pink and fluffy!
It’s really as simple as that.
My wife is a professional fundraiser for over 10 charities and her words were, firearms related with the reason of killing animals, it’s not pleasing to the general public eye so you gonna get wet legs when it comes to fundraising, unless the shooting community all rallies together.
She’s right enough, we and what we do are not pleasing to the public eye.
Lee I acknowledge what you say but what I was trying to get across was the fact that somebody was claiming a JR would cost millions, whereas Packman only needed 36K not millions. If we couldn't raise more than that and form the same kind of company to pursue it we would be a pretty poor lot.
Am I right that WJ never went as far as a JR, just had a letter sent to DEFRA and they collapsed?
Free range rob
Well-Known Member
i think your right, I believe they sent what is known as a pre-protocol letter, which outlines the facts a JR would be for, the other side obviously felt the points raised were valid and so changes were made before the JR, lets be under no misunderstanding, no one would want to go through a JR knowing they were wrong.
Like many things in life that people do wrong, it takes someone to pick up on it and challenge it before anything will stop/change.
I am confident we can raise in the tens of thousands if handled correctly and only from those involved in shooting. The cap on fees after leave to appeal will limit costs and there are a couple of other legal niceties we can use. One should not forget the value of such a successful challenge and that would translate in the legal world to publicity, that too could act to reduce fees.
The key to this are two key positives.
1. We are advised we have a case - we then examine a limited liability company supported by the 'inner circle", we also develop a website which is secure and transparently managed and get publicity anywhere we can.
2. We ask for confirmed costs for a pre-action protocol letter (£3,500 expected thus far but not as a result of this action).
3. We go for a cap on fees and damages - we only seek overturning of his imposition.
In forming the fund ( when we do) we will ask first what is to be done with any unspent cash.
Remember, if we are given the go-ahead there is every chance that the Police will receive the advice that they are vulnerable - the leave to appeal will be heard by a panel of judges. The fact that we seek a cap on fees etc and are only bringing a principled action will help.
DEFRA caved in as soon as WJ sent a pre-protocol letter. hey either thought they were on a hiding to nothing or their ally, the Appointed Head of DEFRA caved in to save them money and use that as an excuse to review.
Therefore - we can and should do no more until we receive positive advice from the barrister, then its the pre-action protocol letter.
As has been said the wheels are turning I just hope the wheels of the law 'grind exceeding small'.
The key to this are two key positives.
1. We are advised we have a case - we then examine a limited liability company supported by the 'inner circle", we also develop a website which is secure and transparently managed and get publicity anywhere we can.
2. We ask for confirmed costs for a pre-action protocol letter (£3,500 expected thus far but not as a result of this action).
3. We go for a cap on fees and damages - we only seek overturning of his imposition.
In forming the fund ( when we do) we will ask first what is to be done with any unspent cash.
Remember, if we are given the go-ahead there is every chance that the Police will receive the advice that they are vulnerable - the leave to appeal will be heard by a panel of judges. The fact that we seek a cap on fees etc and are only bringing a principled action will help.
DEFRA caved in as soon as WJ sent a pre-protocol letter. hey either thought they were on a hiding to nothing or their ally, the Appointed Head of DEFRA caved in to save them money and use that as an excuse to review.
Therefore - we can and should do no more until we receive positive advice from the barrister, then its the pre-action protocol letter.
As has been said the wheels are turning I just hope the wheels of the law 'grind exceeding small'.
Similar threads
