Election Court dismisses petition that argued by-election count involved “sleight of hand”

Graham Harry Moore - who ran as a candidate for the English Constitution Party in the by-election held on 1 May 2025 - launched the legal challenge two weeks after polling day.

His case, which named the successful Reform candidate, Sarah Pochin MP, and the returning officer, Stephen Young, centred on one main claim that argued the vote count was "fraudulent and/or erroneous".

Four separate allegations were made under this ground, the first of which alleged that the number of votes Moore was awarded was "fraudulently predetermined at 50 votes", the same number of votes as that he had received in a 2016 by-election in which he stood in Tooting.

He argued that the statistical probability of this happening was 40,000 to 1 and that the allocation of 50 votes was "likely facilitated by the alleged fact that votes were clipped into bundles of 50 votes as part of the Count".

Secondly, Moore argued that he had seen many more votes for him around the count room while observing the count.

He said he personally saw what he estimated to be 116 votes for him, consisting of two bundles of 50 and approximately 16 loose.

Thirdly, he alleged that the allocation of only 50 votes to him was the product of a process likened to a magician's "sleight of hand", in what he said to be a chaotic scene around the central tables at the count, which prevented the counting agents from witnessing such "sleight of hand".

And fourthly, he contended that a recount - that was carried out due to the proximity of votes for the Reform and Labour candidates - was flawed because "it was merely a bundle recount whereby the number of ballot papers in each bundle was re-checked by flicking through the corners of the ballot papers".

He claimed that the fraudulent and/or erroneous vote count was not discovered as a result of the bundle count.

Moore sought a declaration that the by-election result was void, and for a recount of each individual vote and "not just bundle recounts", to be conducted in a neutral area with an independent counting team.

The Election Court, King's Bench Division of the High Court, sitting at the Crown Court in Chester, reserved judgment after hearing the petition earlier this month.

The court considered that the key factual issues to determine were whether or not Moore was mistaken when he said that he personally saw what he estimated to be 116 votes for him, consisting of two bundles of 50 and an estimate of 16 loose.

It also said it was key to determine whether Moore was or was not mistaken when he said that what he observed was a bundle recount and not a full recount.

The court heard evidence from three witnesses, including a counting agent, the deputy returning officer Penny Housley, and a statistician. It also considered video evidence of the count itself.

Mr Justice Bryan and Mr Justice Spencer ultimately concluded that a full recount took place, which saw each individual ballot counted rather than a bundle recount, as claimed by Moore.

"Accordingly we reject the Petitioner's evidence, which amounts to a mistaken belief as to what was being undertaken," their judgment said.

It added: "We have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of Ms Housley as to what was being undertaken. Not only was her evidence clear, unequivocal and convincing, it was fully corroborated by the video evidence and which showed a full recount in progress."

The judges also said they were "satisfied" that during the count there was no act or omission by the returning officer or any other person in breach of his official duty in connection with the election or otherwise of the parliamentary elections rules.

Elsewhere, they concluded that "the election was so conducted as to be substantially in accordance with the law as to elections".

The decision added: "As there was no act or omission there also can have been no act or omission that affected the result.

"In this regard we are also satisfied, that the number of votes cast for each candidate was accurately announced at the conclusion of the Count."

The judges went on to dismiss the petition, declare that the election was not void, before ordering Moore to pay £45,000 in costs to Stephen Young and a further £30,000 in costs to Sarah Pochin.

Graham Moore told Local Government Lawyer that he is "considering an appeal on a point of law".

Stephen Youung, meanwhile, said he welcomed the judgment "which confirmed that the election and count were conducted appropriately".

Adam Carey