High Court challenge over 'pre-ticking' electoral registration forms ends

Legal proceedings over the practice of electoral registration officers (EROs) ‘pre-ticking’ the annual electoral registration canvass form have come to an end.

The practice covered electors who had previously indicated that they did not want their details included in the edited version of the register.

In 2012 the directory company 192.com warned EROs of potential legal action if they did not sign an undertaking not to ‘pre-tick’ canvass forms.

Twenty-seven EROs refused so 192.com launched judicial review proceedings. The company claimed that the practice went against advice from the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators.

Twelve EROs subsequently signed the undertaking but the other 15 continued to refuse.

The High Court gave 192.com permission to bring a claim and the case was listed for hearing in March.

However, the legal action has now been discontinued.

In a statement 192.com said: “Before the case could be heard by the court,….the Government made clear for the first time in December 2013 that a new system of ‘individual electoral registration’ would definitely be introduced in 2014.

“This made any ruling from the court of academic interest only – because in the future a system of continuing opt-out (until a voter advises otherwise) will be introduced.”

The company added: “In those circumstances all parties to the action agreed earlier this year that it would not be a proper use of court time nor of public money for the proceedings to be pursued further. Neither side won or lost because the case was not heard.”

Legal costs were awarded to the defendants, but 192.com insisted that this did not reflect the merits of the case.

Keith Marsden, 192.com’s chief executive officer, said: "Our action was never about money but was always about an extremely important point of principle  – namely that all Electoral Registration Officers should perform their duties as Parliament intended and in accordance with relevant statutory regulations: it is unacceptable for any such officers to deviate from the process prescribed by law particularly when advised that it is wrong to do so by the Electoral Commission and their own professional body.

“We have no regrets about taking action against these 15 Electoral Registration Officers. They are not above the law and we would not hesitate to take the same action again."    

However, Eamonn Boylan, Stockport’s chief executive and ERO, said: "We take the privacy of Stockport’s electors very seriously. Our view is that if people have previously expressed a desire not to be included in the version of the register available for general sale we should continue to reflect that wish until they tell us otherwise. There was an important principle at stake here and working together we defended it.”