The Shoddy Law Project
The Good Law Project website explains Mermaids lost on the “technical ground” of standing. The GLP says they “signalled the case is not straightforward” when they began which is “reflected in the time taken by the Tribunal to make its decision”.
Let’s unpack three key errors:
(1) The word “technical” does not diminish anything as almost all legal arguments may be so described. Standing is a critical prerequisite to being heard, to being relevant. So Mermaids “technically” should never have brought the case. So Mermaids “technically” lost.
(2) On analysis, the case was straightforward. Mermaids didn’t have standing to bring it. There is literally no more straightforward point I think of on which to lose a case.
(3) There is no necessary connection at all between the complexity of a case and the time taken to produce judgment. There might just be a lot to say about how obviously wrong you are. Or the judge might have had a big caseload. Or went on holiday for a bit.
Let’s say a lot about how obviously wrong they are.
If Mermaids had issued that statement, I’d cut it a little more slack.
But the Good Law Project is supposed to know, uh, the law. Part of being a public interest legal advocacy group is that you know how to pick your cases — and your plaintiffs. The civil rights movement in the U.S. was very careful about which cases they brought. Ditto for the gay marriage movement.
For the GLP, losing a case on a “technical” issue like standing is actually WORSE, in my opinion, than if they had lost on the merits. In a controversial and changing area of the law, you’re going to lose some cases on the merits no matter how right you think you are — you got the wrong judge, etc.
But losing on standing strongly suggests that you screwed up in your basic strategy, and wasted your donors’ money.
Yeah. Standing issues sometimes come up even in seemingly legitimate cases, but for the GLP to not accept that this was a bad case to bring forward, and that Mermaids was a poor choice of client for their cause, spells out a lot about their skill as lawyers.
Sure, standing can be a little fuzzy, too, and you can’t predict how a court will rule on that, either. So I wouldn’t say the GLP is incompetent just because they lost a case on standing grounds. But they ought to be a little sheepish about it, not puffing themselves up about how they didn’t REALLY lose….
From what I recall though, the GLP has a pretty poor record on cases it has been involved in. So much so that I have seen people compare it to a grift because the main object could be seen as employment for the GLP, rather than actually advancing the causes it espouses.
You might well say that; I couldn’t possibly comment.
More like they didn’t EVEN lose (much like not even wrong).
It’s a technical decision because the law is a technology and you don’t get to do things the law doesn’t allow just because you think you should. It’s not however a “technicality” which, as I understand it, generally refers to issues unrelated to the purpose of the law. The GLP, as usual, is being disingenuous.