can you please answer all questions
Saved to this PC- at References Mailings Review View Help AaBbcc AaBbcAaBbcc AaBbce AaBbc 1 Normal Body Text No Space Table Par.. Heading 1 SA! E. Paragraph Assessment Task R(Good Law Project and Runnymede Trust) v The Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 2022] EWHC 298 (Admin) In a decision on the 15 February 2022, the High Court found in favour of the Runnymede Trust on its public equality argument and dismissed the claim brought by the Good Law Project for lack of standing The Assessment takes the form of a rehearing in the High Court of the Good Law Project's application to judicially review the decision by the Secretary of State for Health Matt Hancock's to appoint Dido Harding and Mike Coupe to key positions managing the Covic-19 response without open competition. Students should therefore, assume that the hearing is being held afresh. They may therefore use the grounds at paragraphs 3-5 of in the High Court judgment by Lord Justice Singh and Justice Swift or supplement these with other arguments that arise from the facts Individual students should read the case then prepare arguments for a judicial review heating as assigned by the Module Leaders on behalf of other HE dup oot.Saved to this PC- yout References Mailings Review View Help p = = = = = = = AaBbce AaBbc AaBbc AaBbcc Aa Bb Normal Body Ted No Spa 1 table Par Heading Paragraph WHICU W Werburu Claimant: Good Law Project Respondent: Secretary of State for Health and Social Care You do not have to address arguments by the Runnymede or the Prime Minister and can assume that they are being separately legally represented. Your presentation should address preliminary points, grounds of challenge, remedies and 2 HE O top A 8 noot Saved to this PC- Search Pi+2 ayout References Mailings Review View Help AE-E-5 T AaBbCct AaBbC| AaBbCct AaBbCcC Aal 1 Normal 1 Body Text 1 No Spac... 1 Table Par Head 3 Paragraph 5 Styles any Human Rights issues raised by the scenario, as assigned by the Module Leaders. Your answer should be supported by relevant statute and case law 1) Each individual student will present an oral application/argument live via Blackboard Collaborate of their assigned elements of the Judicial Review Application. a) Lead Counsel for the Claimant (A) representing the Good Law Project and Lead Counsel for the Respondent (B) representing the Secretary of State for Health argue. Procedural Formalities with a particular focus on standing, time and any human rights arguments insofar that they are relevant b) Junior Counsel for the Claimant (C) representing the Good Law Project and Junior Counsel for the Respondent (D) for the Secretary of State for Health argue at least two of the most relevant substantive grounds on the merits of the claim (such as, for example, illegality and procedural impropriety) and explain any Remedies sought. 2) Each student must submit a skeleton argument via Turnitin in advance of uploading their oral assessment. The Skeleton Argument will be taken into consideration when assessing the Oral Presentation as part of the grades given for both LSAP and Administrative Law 4+ 144 H 96 5 40 6 & 4 7 * 8 00 9 Saved to this PC- at References Mailings Review View Help AaBbcc AaBbcAaBbcc AaBbce AaBbc 1 Normal Body Text No Space Table Par.. Heading 1 SA! E. Paragraph Assessment Task R(Good Law Project and Runnymede Trust) v The Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 2022] EWHC 298 (Admin) In a decision on the 15 February 2022, the High Court found in favour of the Runnymede Trust on its public equality argument and dismissed the claim brought by the Good Law Project for lack of standing The Assessment takes the form of a rehearing in the High Court of the Good Law Project's application to judicially review the decision by the Secretary of State for Health Matt Hancock's to appoint Dido Harding and Mike Coupe to key positions managing the Covic-19 response without open competition. Students should therefore, assume that the hearing is being held afresh. They may therefore use the grounds at paragraphs 3-5 of in the High Court judgment by Lord Justice Singh and Justice Swift or supplement these with other arguments that arise from the facts Individual students should read the case then prepare arguments for a judicial review heating as assigned by the Module Leaders on behalf of other HE dup oot.Saved to this PC- yout References Mailings Review View Help p = = = = = = = AaBbce AaBbc AaBbc AaBbcc Aa Bb Normal Body Ted No Spa 1 table Par Heading Paragraph WHICU W Werburu Claimant: Good Law Project Respondent: Secretary of State for Health and Social Care You do not have to address arguments by the Runnymede or the Prime Minister and can assume that they are being separately legally represented. Your presentation should address preliminary points, grounds of challenge, remedies and 2 HE O top A 8 noot Saved to this PC- Search Pi+2 ayout References Mailings Review View Help AE-E-5 T AaBbCct AaBbC| AaBbCct AaBbCcC Aal 1 Normal 1 Body Text 1 No Spac... 1 Table Par Head 3 Paragraph 5 Styles any Human Rights issues raised by the scenario, as assigned by the Module Leaders. Your answer should be supported by relevant statute and case law 1) Each individual student will present an oral application/argument live via Blackboard Collaborate of their assigned elements of the Judicial Review Application. a) Lead Counsel for the Claimant (A) representing the Good Law Project and Lead Counsel for the Respondent (B) representing the Secretary of State for Health argue. Procedural Formalities with a particular focus on standing, time and any human rights arguments insofar that they are relevant b) Junior Counsel for the Claimant (C) representing the Good Law Project and Junior Counsel for the Respondent (D) for the Secretary of State for Health argue at least two of the most relevant substantive grounds on the merits of the claim (such as, for example, illegality and procedural impropriety) and explain any Remedies sought. 2) Each student must submit a skeleton argument via Turnitin in advance of uploading their oral assessment. The Skeleton Argument will be taken into consideration when assessing the Oral Presentation as part of the grades given for both LSAP and Administrative Law 4+ 144 H 96 5 40 6 & 4 7 * 8 00 9
