Am I being thick, or does this seemingly have no bearing on the 115 charges?
None of the charges relate to the rules we're challenging, because those rules weren't even brought in until years after the most recent of the charges.
The article in the Times tries to link the two, and claims that a victory in this hearing could give us a strong defence for the 115 hearing, but I don't see how?
Even if we managed to get these new rules chucked out as unlawful (big if), and even if we could make the argument that some of the rules we're alleged to have broken are unlawful on the same principle (even bigger if), it wouldn't be a valid justification for breaking them after the fact.