High Court grants relief to by-election candidate over 81,000 leaflets missing imprint

Matt Goodwin, who received the second highest number of votes in the by-election on Thursday (26 February), had applied to the court for relief under section 167 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 in respect of an inadvertent illegal practice.

Mr Justice Butcher ultimately concluded that the error, which saw an imprint cut off of campaigning material, constituted an inadvertent illegal practice under the Representation of the People Act 1983.

The leaflet was sent out to more than 80,000 people in the weeks leading up to the by-election.

The material was produced and distributed with the help of Goodwin's election agent, Adam Rawlinson, and featured the words of a 74-year-old local pensioner and former Labour voter who had switched her vote to Reform UK.

The party designed the letter to appear as a handwritten note from “a concerned neighbour” and included a legally compliant imprint which stated it was promoted by Goodwin and Rawlinson of Reform UK.

However, the printing company Hardings changed the font on the letter, leading to the imprint being trimmed off or omitted in the finished run.

Some 81,000 leaflets were sent to voters by the printers without further review by Reform UK.

Reform UK's barrister Adam Richardson told the court that the font change was never requested nor authorised, and Goodwin and Rawlinson had no involvement in or knowledge of the physical process.  

After the error had come to light, a spokesperson for Hardings Printers said the firm took "full responsibility", adding: "Reform UK did not request or authorise the removal of the imprint. The omission arose from Hardings Printers’ production process.”

The company also confirmed that the imprint had been inadvertently cut off during the trimming process.

Butcher J ultimately said that the act or omission would be an illegal practice under s.167(2)(a), but granted relief on the grounds that the candidate had not intended for the omission to be made.

According to a master note from the claimants’ solicitors at Aston Bond, and their barrister, Adam Richardson, the judge said that the distributed copies omitted the imprint required by s.110(3)–(5) and that the breach "therefore constitutes an illegal practice under s.110(12)".

However, he found that relief should be granted as he was satisfied that the error or omission arose from "inadvertence and did not arise for want of good faith".

The note summarising the ex tempore decision continued: "As for inadvertence, the evidence shows the omission arose from an error in the production stage. The evidence satisfies me that the error occurred that the font was neither requested or authorised by claimants."

The judge was also satisfied that the claimants, Goodwin and Rawlinson, had taken all reasonable steps prior to publication and that the production used a different font that was neither requested nor instructed by the claimant.

Adam Carey