Love the EU, Hate the Idiots

On Saturday, in a programme about Ted Heath, Radio 4 broadcast a clip from the Today programme the morning we entered the then EEC.  I got quite emotional about it.  I'm still heartbroken by the prospect that we'll probably leave the EU.

As such, I'm interested in any plausible political or legal moves that might be taken to ensure that we don't.  It's probably a forlorn hope, but it's something.  David Allan Green is keeping an eye on some of the legal aspects.  What's just cropped up in my twitter feed is not one of those moves.

Someone called Marcus J Ball* has set up a crowdfunder, the aim of which is to "[p]rosecute dishonest Brexit politicians and bring integrity back to British politics".  He's trying to raise at least £100k.  No, really.  Inevitably, there's  a video.  Look:

Now, I'm not a lawyer; and what law I do know revolves around the medical sphere.  Beyond that... well, it's the sort of legal awareness that one picks up from sitting in rooms with proper lawyers for a decade or so.  I'm sure that osmosis is a totally legitimate pedagogical technique - but, still, I thought it might be fun to have a look.

What does the webpage say, then?  Brace yourselves: it's... not good.

Q1.  What is the plan?#BrexitJustice is a volunteer run crowdfunding campaign which exists to fund legal action in order to bring justice to dishonest politicians and challenge Brexit in the courts
Objectives:
Raise £100,000 minimum (if we don't reach this target then no money will be taken from any accounts and the project will be cancelled)

Would you believe it: people are actually donating...

Formerly engage barristers, solicitors and QCs at a fraction of their normal fees/pro bono

"Formerly".  Also: Barristers and QCs, eh?  All of whom'll just waive their fees because you asked them to?

But mainly "Formerly".

Marcus J Ball will take on the risk of being the 'claimant' on behalf of all backers (thus protecting backers)
Prosecute vote leave leaders based upon fraud, misconduct in public office, undue influence and , possibly, inciting racial hatred

Hmmmm.  Fraud?  Nope.  The CPS website is clear that "the defendant's conduct must be dishonest; [and] his/her intention must be to make a gain[,] or cause a loss or the risk of a loss to another".  So that's hopeless.  Misconduct in public office is also hopeless, as far as I can see.  What counts as holding a public office is unclear; but it appears generally to involve having some specific duty.  There is no sign that running a political campaign counts as the right kind of thing here.  The crowdfunding website does link to a short essay by Anthony Eskander, a barrister, in which he points out that the CPS guidance says that "it does not seem that the person concerned must be the holder of an ‘office’ in a narrow or technical sense".  However, it doesn't follow from that that the person concerned need not hold an office in any sense at all; and it's far from clear that people pushing a political campaign hold office in any relevant sense.  Besides: it seems arguable too that the Courts would invoke - or invent - a doctrine of caveat suffragator, not least because the prospect of having electoral pledges made subject to subsequent legal scrutiny could easily be held to be very bad for policymaking across the board.  In respect of undue influence, a cursory search suggests that that's entirely to do with contracts; and since there's no contract here... well, it's also doomed.  Inciting racial hatred?  Naaaaaaah.  Don't be silly, Marcus.

Fund a judicial review and other legal action to prevent Brexit.

Translation: "I haven't got a clue.  I'm just going to keep on throwing terms around until I find something that stands a chance of doing what I want.  Dangerous Dogs Act?  Well, it has to be worth considering."

I'll iterate that I'm not a lawyer.  Eskander may be right; there may be a case to answer.  But if a bit of common sense and two minutes looking up terms is enough even to land blows on the case, I'd reckon it's in trouble.  Correspondingly, it seems to me that the person behind this caper has done no significant research whatsoever.  If Ball wants £100k (at least!  He also mentions £250k+ towards the bottom of the page!), that seems like quite a serious lapse.

So I can't see the case having any merit whatsoever.  But let's imagine that Ball gets his £100k (stop laughing!), and walks into a lawyer's office and asks that lawyer to work for a reduced fee on a hopeless case.  Would any lawyer actually agree?

Amazingly, the page indicates that four have said they'd be interested.  One is a silk; two of the others are barristers.  But there's a disclaimer:

We will be expecting

- no, really: "expecting" -

those that we do engage to work at a fraction of their market rates.  The following individuals/organisations have expressed their interest in working with us.  However, we are yet to exchange formal letters of engagement as funds are required before we can complete this.

In other words: no lawyer has agreed.  And why would they?

I know that for barristers, there's the cab-rank rule.  (I'm not a lawyer, but I do know a bit about how lawyers work.)  The convention is that they do not turn down cases.  I can see a decent enough defence for this rule: inasmuch as that barristers are not supposed to be able to pick and choose who they represent, so long as the case is in their competence, they avoid prejudicing any trial by having to take all comers.  After all, if a defendant was known to have been turned down by every advocate, that might make the jury think his case hopeless even before he'd opened his mouth.  Moreover, the fiction of the courtroom is that the truth is unknown, and can be discovered best by powerful and disinterested argument.  All the same: one would hope that a decent barrister would take a hopeless client to one side, and advise him of his chances of success - all on the hourly rate, of course.  And in the real world, any barrister can find an excuse to be unable to take on a client: "You are expecting me to work for free" would be a good candidate.

There's a lot more crap on the site (like naming six people as potential targets for legal action, and then immediately adding a disclaimer that there may be no case to answer, because, y'know, libel laws).  But there's a lot of crap on the internet in general, so why be worried about this?  Well, partly because it's embarrassing.  I'm fiercely pro-EU, and the idea that this kind of buffoonery is even close to "my" side is shudder-making.  Partly because calling out this kind of gibberish makes the other side look more sensible than it really is.  Partly it's about the rule of law.

And partly because there's money involved.  If Ball doesn't meet his funding target, he gets none.  But suppose that there're people who're taken in.  According to the page, 3 backers have pledged £1000 each already.  It doesn't take all that many people to get to £100k.  And then... *poof!*  Money gone.

That's not a small amount for anyone.

I think that Ball should think very carefully about whether to keep his campaign going.

*Check out his description of himself on his webpage:

I've spent the last 6 years trying to understand and fight against the higher education problem. Founding start-ups and speaking along the way. I've now come to the conclusion that higher ed is too ruined to reform. The only solution is to create a new kind of university in order to replace the old system.

Working for higher education reform is too exhausting, demoralising and fruitless to dedicate the rest of my twenties too [sic]. I will return to this work when I'm older, wiser and wealthier.

So not only does he launch into legal action without knowing anything much about law; he's also decided to reform higher education without apparently needing to know anything about that... except that he can't be bothered for now.

Christ.