Judgment published where court rejected attack on conduct of ward election
The written judgment has been published this week setting out why an Election Court dismissed a challenge to the validity of an election for a ward in the London Borough of Hackney.
The court had been convened to try an election petition brought under s. 127 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 by Vernon Williams, an independent candidate in the election last May.
Commissioner Richard Price OBE QC ruled against Williams at a trial in November but the judgment in Williams v Patrick & Ors [2014] EWHC 4120 (QB) has just been published on Bailii.
The first respondents were the three successful Labour Party candidates, while the second respondent was Hackney’s returning officer responsible for conducting the election in May last year.
Williams alleged that the first respondents had not been duly elected by reason of acts or omissions on the part of the Returning Officer, his servants or agents, which constituted breaches of election law.
He claimed that the conduct of the election was, therefore, so flawed that it was not conducted so as to be substantially in accordance with the law as to elections, and/or the result of the election was thereby affected.
The specific allegations were:
- Acting in breach of rule 45(3A) of the Parliamentary Rules, contained in Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act, which provides: "The returning officer shall take reasonable steps to begin counting the votes given on the ballot papers as soon as practicable within the period of four hours starting with the close of poll". The petitioner argued that rule 45(3A), which relates to the conduct of parliamentary elections, applies to local government elections by virtue of the provisions of section 36(2) of the 1983 Act. The petitioner complained that the count at the election was delayed until well into the day after the close of poll, when the Returning Officer had no legal authority to do so.
- Storing the ballot boxes, containing the ballot papers, overnight in the Britannia Leisure Centre, which was not a fit place for the purpose of storing ballot boxes and their contents, because it had no inherent security features for such storage. The overnight storage of the ballot papers raised a rebuttable presumption that interference and tampering of the boxes and ballot papers took place, as there was a breach of the statutory requirement to begin the count within four hours after the close of poll.
- Failing to provide the petitioner with an up-to-date and complete absent voters list for the King's Park Ward.
- Failing to provide the petitioner with maps of the King's Park Ward showing recent boundary changes .
- Giving instructions to absent voters which favoured the Labour Party candidates.
- Giving voters at some polling stations pencils to mark the ballot paper.
The petitioner, who acted in person, did not however provide evidence to support his allegations in the petition and did not take any part in the trial.
He had been dissatisfied with Commissioner Price’s directions for trial and lodged a bundle of documents with the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal his order. A deputy master concluded, however, that the Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to consider the application for permission to appeal.
Williams applied for an adjournment of the trial to give him the opportunity to persuade the Court that it was wrong to decline jurisdiction.
Commissioner Price said that even though the petitioner took no part in the trial, it was in the public interest that the allegations contained in the petition should be considered, and that the evidence filed by or on behalf of the respondents in answer to those allegations should be scrutinised with care.
The Commissioner refused the petitioner’s application. He accepted a submission from counsel to the Returning Officer that witness statements, with exhibits, should stand as the evidence in the case – given the petitioner’s failure to identify what part of this evidence he disputed – and that those witnesses should not be required to give oral evidence.
Commissioner Price said: “All the evidence that I have seen indicates that the planning for and conduct of this election was of a high standard, and, apart from this petition, there were no complaints about the way it had been conducted.
“…I reject all the allegations contained in the petition. I have found that the Returning Officer was not guilty of any act, omission or breach of duty in relation to the election. I am completely satisfied that the election was so conducted as to be substantially in accordance with the law as to elections.”
The Commissioner added that there was “no question of the result of the election being affected by any act or omission of the Returning Officer or his staff, because there were none”.
He said that if any of the allegations had been established, there being no challenge to the accuracy of the count, it was difficult to see how the result could reasonably be thought to have been affected.
“The petitioner polled 134 votes, as against over 2000 votes being polled for each of the first respondents,” he noted. “This was not a close election.”
Commissioner Price declared under section 145(1) of the 1983 Act that the first respondents were duly elected.
He added that there were no allegations of corrupt or illegal practices at this election, and no reports to the High Court were required under section 145(3) or (4) of the 1983 Act.
Tim Straker QC and Sappho Dias of 4-5 Gray's Inn Square acted for the Returning Officer, Tim Shields.
