Jolyon Maugham KC has hit back at an attack piece against his non-profit Good Law Project (GLP) published in the *Daily Mail.*On 23 August, Maugham posted:
I’ve seen some astonishingly stupid attack pieces in the Mail in my time but this one really does take the biscuit.
It’s based on something we put out three months ago – on our own website – from which you can tell it’s not news but an attempt to scare us off calling out the Mail’s vile racism.
It won’t work.
The article in question, published on 23 August, was titled “Woke barrister’s ‘hypocrisy’ as he takes left-wing campaign group Good Law Project offshore.”
After listing the inaccuracies of the article, the Good Law Project founder stated that:
It’s why we need press regulation – so they [news outlets] are accountable for what to all intents and purposes are their lies.
‘Enormously hypocritical’… is it?
The Mailarticle stated in its introduction that:
legal experts say the move is ‘enormously hypocritical’ because becoming a trust will ‘give it the benefits’ of being set up like a charity without having oversight from regulators.
One of the legal experts who stated that the trust structure would give the GLP the ‘benefits’ of a charity without Charity Commission oversight was… the Good Law Project itself. Three months ago, on 8 May, it posted an update about its ownership structure, stating that:
When Good Law Project was set up in 2017 by Jolyon Maugham he wanted the public interest features of a charity but outside of the moving political guardrails policed by the Charity Commission. So he adopted a structure which mirrored many of the features of charities.
The GLP explained that Maugham set up the GLP as a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee. This means that it can’t declare dividends.
‘An internet troll’
The Daily Mail also quoted “veteran barrister” Barbara Rich, who said:
the restructuring meant that GLP would operate ‘without the burden of charity registration’.
This would be a lot more meaningful if the GLP had ever operated as a charity. However, it has not and never did. Likewise, in his social media post, Maugham pointed out that the GLP won’t receive tax relief — a major benefit of being a charity.
Its lack of charity status gives it more free rein to challenge both the government and the Charities Commission itself, which it has done on multiple occasions. Rich called this being “pretty antagonistic towards the Charity Commission generally”.
In his social media post, Maugham also called Rich “an Internet troll” who posts “obsessively” about both the GLP and Maugham himself.
Good Law Project gets the Daily Mail treatment
The May GLP article went on to explain the reasoning behind its shift to Jersey:
Another feature of charities is that they are not owned by any individual or individuals. Instead they exist for a purpose. As Good Law Project approaches its tenth anniversary, the time has come to replicate this feature too.
Jolyon has been replaced as owner of Good Law Project by a Jersey ‘purpose’ trust. The purpose of the trust will be to hold the membership interest in Good Law Project. It has been set up in Jersey because the UK’s legal system has no such thing as ‘purpose’ trusts, except for charities, and Jersey’s legal system does.
The trust structure also means that other people can now join as trustees, rather than Maugham having sole ownership. This, the GLP stated, also meant that it could operate “a bit more like a charity board”.
However, it’s very hard to read ‘we’re restructuring in Jersey’ without immediately thinking ‘tax dodge’. In anticipation of this conclusion, the GLP stated clearly that it:
will remain UK resident for tax purposes and there will be no change to how its income is taxed. There will be no change to its articles, the asset lock will obviously remain in place, and it will continue to be unable to declare dividends.
‘Pathetic’ attack against Good Law Project
Unfortunately, the Mailneglected to mention that part of the GLP’s statement. Instead, it chose to quote James Mews, of Jersey’s Amati Law, who chaired a steering group to “improve Trusts Law on the island”. Mews stated that:
A Jersey purpose trust has a greater level of confidentiality and privacy regarding control, ownership and resources than a UK company.
A UK company registered at Companies House will still be subject to stringent, regulatory oversight.
This is completely true. However, as Maugham pointed out:
it deliberately misses the point Good Law Project will continue to have exactly the same UK company law obligations it always did.
The reporting is pathetic, intellectually dishonest and exactly the sort of thing you would expect the Mail to carry.
And that’s just what we at the Canary would say of the *Daily Mail,*to boot. Well, at least in polite company, in any case…
Featured image via the Canary
By Grace
From Canary via This RSS Feed.