Sir Sadiq Khan has used a rare power to veto a £50 million contract which had been negotiated between the Metropolitan Police and an American tech company called Palantir. A contract which the Met desperately needed to help them fight crime.
So why has the Mayor of London taken this unusual step? Palantir is a world-leader in using AI to speedily analyse vast quantities of data collected by its clients. In its contract with the NHS for example it has analysed patient data so effectively it has already reduced NHS waiting lists and created more than 100,000 extra appointments. And in its earlier work for the police it analysed pre-existing data held by the Met to root out allegedly fraudulent police officers.
This extraordinary political intervention has serious consequences for the already dire state of policing in London
The Met police say that the consequence of being denied this new technology following the Mayor’s veto will mean they are “forced to make further tough choices that cannot avoid reducing officer numbers”.
It is clear therefore that this extraordinary political intervention has serious consequences for the already dire state of policing in London. Fewer police means a poorer service, which doubtless equates to more crime.
So what justification is there for putting the kibosh on this contract? After all, if a politician is going to intervene in a commercial transaction in a way that will have such negative effects for his constituents it’s probably a good idea to examine why. As a former Attorney General I think Khan’s decision is susceptible to challenge in the courts.
Sir Sadiq claimed the reason for his decision was down to a lack of consultation and competition. The problem is that his office also questioned the “values and ethics” of Palantir. That raises the distinct possibility that it was Khan’s political ideologies rather than procedural technicalities that is the reason behind the veto. If that’s the case then perhaps it’s not Palantir’s ethics that will end up being examined here – it’s actually the ethics of Sir Sadiq himself which could come under the microscope.
Palantir is a thriving company established in 2003 which operates very successfully with several UK Police forces, the Ministry of Defence and many others worldwide. But amongst those is reputed to be the American immigration enforcement agency known as ICE and the Israeli military. The Left have also associated the company with supporters of Donald Trump.
We all know that Sir Sadiq Khan has not been reticent with his views on Trump or Israel. Last year Khan called Trump “racist, sexist, misogynistic and Islamophobic”. As for Israel, Khan broke with the UK government's official stance when he described the military operations in Gaza as a "genocide", a claim Israel has denounced as “distorted and false.”
It’s reasonable to conjecture that Khan’s personal views on Trump and Israel was what was being referred to when his office spoke of “values and ethics” after he cancelled the contract with Palantir.
But if Palantir has senior people who support the Trump administration or do business with Israel they will surely have that in common with hundreds of other companies who have the same connections. And where would this ever end? Would the “values and ethics” of a company that sells tomato sauce to Israel be a reason to block them from providing tomato sauce to police canteens in London?
What options are open for a judicial review of Khan’s intervention?
The Mayor claimed that the Met had not undertaken the procurement process properly in that they had not approached other suppliers. That would be surprising, after all the Met contracts with numerous suppliers to source everything from police cars to pens. Yet they have somehow got it wrong this time? Isn’t it more likely that there were no other suppliers to approach for the unique skills provided by this cutting-edge tech company? If a pharmaceutical company invents a unique new medicine, procurement law surely doesn’t require you to wait until another company invents a rival product that does the same thing. It is possible in this case there was no one else relevant to approach.
The courts may intervene to judicially review the decision of a public body, like the Mayor of London, when that executive authority goes wrong.
The Met police say the decision will result in a loss of police officers and hence presumably more crime on the streets of London
One reason can be if the courts judge a decision “irrational”, one that no sensible person would have made. That can be a question of fact and degree. A decision can be rational to ban a company supplying cosmetics, but banning the same company providing lifesaving medicine may not be rational. Here the Met police say the decision will result in a loss of police officers and hence presumably more crime on the streets of London. A court might well have something to say about that.
Another reason can be if a decision is judged to have been biased, unfair or against the rules of natural justice. Here the Mayor may also be in trouble. If a court finds he has a personal bias against Israel or against President Trump such that it was a motivation behind his decision that may also prove problematic for the Mayor.
We all know that if a politician were extremely keen to do business with a particular company it might raise legitimate questions. But alleged bias against a company should also be a legitimate concern.
Palantir can look after itself, they are not my concern. But I would be concerned if an ideologically-motivated decision risks public safety. The British public just want efficient and cost-effective policing. It will be up to Palantir to decide whether to challenge the Mayor’s veto to see if they got it.
Sir Michael Ellis KC was Attorney General in 2021 and 2022
