Judge rejects challenge to removal of description in register of political parties

A High Court judge has dismissed a legal challenge brought by the English Democrats to a decision by the Electoral Commission to remove one of 12 descriptions included in the party’s entry in the register of political parties for Great Britain.

The Commission took the decision to remove the description “English Democrats – England Worth Fighting For!" on 7 September 2016.

The watchdog said it had made the move because it considered the description “offensive in the context of the forthcoming by-election in that the description could reasonably be perceived as a call to or condoning, violent means to further a particular political view”.

The relevant by-election was for the Batley and Spen constituency following the murder of MP Jo Cox in the week before the referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU.

The English Democrats challenged the Commission’s decision on the following grounds:

i) The Commission lacked vires to make the decision.

ii) The decision was not one that the Commission could reasonably have reached.

iii) The Commission failed to consult with the claimant before taking the decision.

In English Democrats Party v Electoral Commission [2018] EWHC 251 (Admin) Mr Justice Supperstone rejected the legal challenge.

The judge said:

• Section 23(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 gave the Commission the vires to make the decision.
• He did not accept that the decision was one that the Commission could not reasonably have reached. “It is clear that the Commission undertook a careful review….. It concluded that the murder of Ms Cox in her constituency under the banner of putting "Britain first" meant that the use of the word "fighting" in the description "English Democrats – England Worth Fighting For!" would, for a sufficiently large number of voters reading the ballot paper, more likely be associated with the primary meaning of the word "fighting" (i.e. the use of physical force to defeat an opponent) than its secondary meaning (i.e. campaigning for a cause), rendering the description offensive. This, in my judgment, was a conclusion that the Commission was entitled to reach on the evidence.”
• The present case was “an example of where a public interest urgency prevailed over the requirement to allow representations to be made before a decision affecting a person or body is taken.” The judge added that he was satisfied that the failure to give the claimant prior notification of the decision and the opportunity to make representations did not make the decision unlawful.

Mr Justice Supperstone therefore dismissed the claim.