Regina v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Pro-Life Alliance Party: Admn 24 Mar 1997

The complainant sought leave to present a judicial review of the respondent’s refusal to transmit his party election broadcast on the grounds of its absence of taste and decency.
Held: The decision that the offending parts of the transmission did not meet the requirements of decency and taste, was not perverse. Nor was it arguable that the BBC has misapplied its own stated policy. It was suggested in argument that the BBC had acted in an inconsistent manner, but almost daily viewers are subjected to harrowing scenes of massacres and the like and from to time shots are shown of Nazi atrocities in the concentration camps. Even if there were inconsistency, that does not seem to me to give rise to an arguable case there has been perversity in the instant case.

Judges:

Dyson J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 316

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Quintavelle (PPC for the Prolife Alliance) CA 20-Oct-1997
The applicant stood for Parliament, but the respondent had refused to show his party election broadcast on the grounds of its lack of taste and decency. He had sought to demonstrate the evils of abortion, and now renewed his application for leave to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, Media

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137261

Regina (Pearson Martinez and Hirst) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others; Hirst v Attorney-General: QBD 17 Apr 2001

A law which removed a prisoner’s right to vote whilst in prison was not incompatible with his human rights. The implied right to vote under article 3 was not absolute, and states had a wide margin of appreciation as to how and to what extent the right should be limited, provided that the conditions should not curtail the rights to such an extent as to remove their effectiveness, and should only be imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and should not be disproportionate.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy

Citations:

Times 17-Apr-2001, Gazette 07-Jun-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 239

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Representation of the People Act 1983 3 (1), European Convention on Human Rights 3

Cited by:

Appeal fromHirst v The United Kingdom (No. 2) ECHR 30-Mar-2004
(Commission) The prisoner alleged that the denial of his right to vote whilst in prison was disproportionate. He was serving a life sentence for manslaughter.
Held: The denial of a right to vote was in infringement of his rights and . .
Appeal fromHirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Elections, Prisons, Elections, Human Rights

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85999

HM Attorney-General v Jones: Admn 23 Apr 1999

When an MP had lost her parliamentary seat for a conviction of electoral fraud, but the conviction was overturned on appeal, the vacation of the seat was set aside, and she was restored provided only that the writ for the election had not been returned.

Citations:

Times 03-May-1999, Gazette 26-May-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 350

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Representation of the People Act 1953

Elections

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.77988

The Conservative and Unionist Party v The Election Commissioner: CA 23 Nov 2010

A losing candidate at a local election alleged corrupt and illegal practices relating to the entry of non-existent people on the electoral roll and using postal votes. The Election Commissioner found this proved and the election void, and awarded costs against him. He was unable to meet the sum awarded and became bankrupt. The candidate who had lost sought payment from the defrauding candidate’s party (against whom no offence had been found). The Party now disputed the jurisdiction of and its use by the Commissioner to join them. Party funds had insured the fund for the defence in Court. It was argued that the Commissioner was functus officio, and had no jurisdiction to take matters further.

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP, Smith, Leveson LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1332, [2011] PTSR 416

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Representation of the People Act 1983

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Cripps; Ex parte Muldoon CA 1984
The Elections Commissioner had sought, some time after his order on a petition, to clarify the order from costs.
Held: The Commissioner, and in turn Keith J, had been wrong to consider themselves not bound by Muldoon. What Mr Cripps (the . .
CitedAiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’) HL 1986
Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now . .
Appeal fromThe Conservative and Unionist Party v The Election Commissioner and Others Admn 19-Feb-2010
A local election result had been set aside for fraud in the winning Conservative candidate. The Commissioner made an order for costs against his party which was now challenged for lack of jurisdiction the Commissioner being functus officio, and the . .
CitedUllah and Others, Ahmed v Pagel, Scallan, Kennedy CA 12-Dec-2002
The claimants sought to issue election petitions to challenge the results of local elections. The petitioners had complied with all the rules save that they had failed to serve the notice of presentation within the five day period. The claimants . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedTaunton Election Petition, In re; Marshall v James CCP 29-May-1874
A petition against the return of the member for Taunton was filed in November 1873. The trial commenced on the 12th of January, 1874, and on the morning of the 26th, at about 10.30, the judge gave judgment declaring the respondent to have been duly . .
CitedRegina v Cripps; Ex parte Muldoon QBD 1983
The election commissioner, Mr Anthony Cripps QC, had purported to explain many months later what he had meant in an order for costs which he had made when handing down his judgment on an election petition. It was argued that he had had the power to . .
CitedVakauta v Kelly 1989
(High Court of Australia) The majority held that the first instance judge fell on the wrong side of ‘an ill-defined line beyond which the expression by a trial judge of preconceived views about the reliability of particular medical witnesses could . .
CitedLocabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd CA 17-Nov-1999
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias
In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The mere . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.426466

Levers v Morris: QBD 1972

The court drew a lot to decide the outcome of a drawn election.

Citations:

[1972] 1 QB 221

Statutes:

Representation of the People Act 1949 37(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedEdgell v Glover, Garnett (Returning Officer) QBD 4-Nov-2003
The constituency had adopted an all postal ballot, resulting in a counted majority of one. One ballot paper’s confirmation of identity had not been signed.
Held: The function of the court, exercising its jurisdiction under section 48(1), is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187487

X v United Kingdom: ECHR 3 Oct 1975

The applicant, a serving prisoner, complained that he had been excluded from voting in the referendum on the British membership of the EEC.
Held: Article 10 does not guarantee a right to vote as such.
Article 3 Protocol 1 : the obligations of the High Contracting Parties under this provision are limited to the field of elections concerning the choice of the legislature. British Referendum on EEC membership outisde the scope of this provision.

Citations:

7096/75

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights A3P1 810

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedMoohan and Another v The Lord Advocate SC 17-Dec-2014
The petitioners, convicted serving prisoners, had sought judicial review of the refusal to allow them to vote in the Scottish Referendum on Independence. The request had been refused in the Outer and Inner Houses.
Held: (Kerr, Wilson JJSC . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Elections, European

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.541521

X v United Kingdom: ECHR 1979

(Commission) The claimant sought admission of her complaint that being employed by the European Commission and resident in Belgium she had lost her right to vote. She contrasted her position with that of members of the armed forces and members of diplomatic missions who retained their votes though overseas.
Held: The complaint was inadmissible. The comparators remained in the employment of the UK government and were sent overseas under compulsion. The discrimination was justified. They were resident-citizens, in contrast to the applicant who was living abroad voluntarily.

Citations:

(1979) 15 DR 137

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedSmith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) SC 30-Jun-2010
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Elections

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.420211

Richard Beswick v Henry Aked: 29 Jan 1846

Henry Aked, James Aked, and forty other persons mentioned in a schedule annexed to the case, claimed to be entitled to vote for the southern division of the county of Lancaster, in respect of the same freehold premises, which consisted of several small houses situate in the township of Lancaester

Citations:

[1846] EngR 356, (1846) 2 CB 156, (1846) 135 ER 902

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Elections

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.302251

John Stephenson Robson v Lawrence Lawson Brown: 14 Nov 1856

Appeals cannot be consolidated under the 6 and 7 Vict. e. 18, s. 44, unless they depend upon the same precise point of law.-Where, therefore, a consolidated appeal contained a different statement of facts as applicable to the several voters, requiring several decisions in point of law, the court declined to entertain it.

Citations:

[1856] EngR 899, (1856) 1 CB NS 34, (1856) 140 ER 14

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Elections

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.291654

Moore v Electoral Registration Officer for Borders: ScSf 1980

(Sheriff Court of Lothian and Borders) The court considered the construction of the words ‘unable or likely to be unable to go in person to the polling station’, so as to qualify somebody to apply for a postal vote under the 1949 Act. This led to the question of just how difficult it had to be for a voter to be able to attend the polling station before he could be characterised as being ‘unable’ to go in person.
Held: The words were to be construed with regard to the legislative purpose of the statute: ‘I should have thought that the exceptions laid down in section 12(1) were designed to encourage an elector to exercise his vote rather than put difficulties in his way.’

Citations:

1980 SLT 39

Statutes:

Representation of the People Act 1949 12(1)

Cited by:

CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department, Regina (on the Application of) v Asylum Support Adjudicator and others Admn 16-May-2006
The Asylum Support adjudicators had allowed appeals by the asylum failed seekers, and had awarded them support. The Secretary of State now appealed. The failed asylum seekers had been unable to leave the country and having been refused support were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Elections

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.244197

Wilson v Independent Broadcasting Authority: OHCS 1979

In the lead up to the Scottish referendum on Devolution, the Authority required the broadcasters to carry party political broadcasts for each of the four main parties. Three parties favoured voting yes in the referendum, and the authority was injuncted by those opposing the Yes campaign.
Held: The injunction was set aside. The Act required the Authority to maintain a balance of approximately for each case. The court considered how the broadcasting media should achieve balance during elections.
Lord Ross said: ‘I see no reason in principle why an individual should not sue in order to prevent a breach by a public body of a duty owed by that public body to the public. It may well be that the Lord Advocate could be a petitioner if the interests of the public as a whole were affected…, but I see no reason why an individual should not sue provided always that the individual can qualify an interest.
Having considered the petitioners’ averments, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have averred sufficient interest.
(1) They are voters and the Referendum gives them the choice to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
(2) They belong to an organisation or group who apparently believe that the question should be answered ‘No’.
(3) It is implicit in the name of the organisation or group that the petitioners wish to persuade other voters to vote ‘No’.
It is plain from the petition and the answers that the petitioners and the political parties believe that the programmes are likely to be influential upon the electorate in Scotland, and if that is so, the petitioners have an interest to see that the respondents do not act in breach of any statutory duties in relation to such programmes.’

Judges:

Lord Ross

Citations:

[1979] SC 351 OH, [1979] SLT 279

Statutes:

Broadcasting Act 1990

Cited by:

CitedRegina v British Broadcasting Corporation, ex parte Referendum Party; Regina v Independent Television Commission, ex parte Referendum Party Admn 24-Apr-1997
The Referendum Party challenged the allocation to it of less time for election broadcasts. Under the existing agreements, having fielded over 50 candidates, they were allocated only five minutes.
Held: Neither the inclusion of past electoral . .
CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SCS 8-Jan-2010
The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2009 Act by judicial review. The Act would make their insured and themselves liable to very substantial unanticipated claims for damages for pleural plaques which would not previousl or otherwise . .
CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, Media, Scotland

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.181971

Thompson v Dann and Another In re a Local Government Election Eel Brook Hammersmith: QBD 3 Nov 1994

The offence of ‘personation’ was not proven without evidence of deliberate misrepresentation as to identity when voting.
Proof of personation requires evidence of intention to vote in name of another.

Citations:

Gazette 16-Nov-1994, Times 03-Nov-1994, Independent 09-Nov-1994

Statutes:

Representation of the People Act 1983 60

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Elections, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.89874

Barnardiston v Soam (No 2): 1685

Citations:

[1685] EngR 215, (1685) 3 Keb 419, (1685) 84 ER 798 (D)

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 1) 1685
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 3) 1685
Offly for the plaintiff, that debt lieth pending error n 22 H, 6, 38, being a new original, which the Court agreed ; and a respondeas ouster ; and notwithstanding it was affirmed that judgment in debt pending error here was reversed in Exchequer . .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 4) 1685
. .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soame 1702
On the death of Sir Henry North, one of the knights for Suffolk ; a writ was issued forth for the election of a new member, and Sir Samuel Barnardiston and my Lord Huntingtowre were the two candidates ; but Sir Samuel carried it by 78 voices, and . .
See AlsoSir William Soames v Sir Sam Barnardiston 1826
Action on the case lies not against a sheriff for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ. . .
See AlsoSir Samuel, Barnardiston v Sir Will Soames 1826
Whether an action on the case lies at common law against the sheriff for maliciously making a double return upon a writ to elect a member of Parliament. . .
See AlsoSir Samuel Barnardiston v Soames 1826
Case lies against the sheriff at common law for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ falsely, maliciously, and with intent to put the pIaintiff to expense. Disseni, Rainsford J . .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soames 1826
Case lies against the sheriff at common law for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ falsely, maliciously, and with intent to put the pIaintiff to expense. Disseni, Rainsford J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Elections

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.396990

Barnardiston v Soam (No 1): 1685

Citations:

[1685] EngR 216, (1685) 3 Keb 389, (1685) 84 ER 783

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 2) 1685
. .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 3) 1685
Offly for the plaintiff, that debt lieth pending error n 22 H, 6, 38, being a new original, which the Court agreed ; and a respondeas ouster ; and notwithstanding it was affirmed that judgment in debt pending error here was reversed in Exchequer . .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 4) 1685
. .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soame 1702
On the death of Sir Henry North, one of the knights for Suffolk ; a writ was issued forth for the election of a new member, and Sir Samuel Barnardiston and my Lord Huntingtowre were the two candidates ; but Sir Samuel carried it by 78 voices, and . .
See AlsoSir William Soames v Sir Sam Barnardiston 1826
Action on the case lies not against a sheriff for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ. . .
See AlsoSir Samuel, Barnardiston v Sir Will Soames 1826
Whether an action on the case lies at common law against the sheriff for maliciously making a double return upon a writ to elect a member of Parliament. . .
See AlsoSir Samuel Barnardiston v Soames 1826
Case lies against the sheriff at common law for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ falsely, maliciously, and with intent to put the pIaintiff to expense. Disseni, Rainsford J . .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soames 1826
Case lies against the sheriff at common law for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ falsely, maliciously, and with intent to put the pIaintiff to expense. Disseni, Rainsford J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Elections

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.396991

Barnardiston v Soam (No 4): 1685

Citations:

[1685] EngR 214, (1685) 3 Keb 442, (1685) 84 ER 812 (D)

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 1) 1685
. .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 2) 1685
. .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 3) 1685
Offly for the plaintiff, that debt lieth pending error n 22 H, 6, 38, being a new original, which the Court agreed ; and a respondeas ouster ; and notwithstanding it was affirmed that judgment in debt pending error here was reversed in Exchequer . .

Cited by:

See AlsoBarnardiston v Soame 1702
On the death of Sir Henry North, one of the knights for Suffolk ; a writ was issued forth for the election of a new member, and Sir Samuel Barnardiston and my Lord Huntingtowre were the two candidates ; but Sir Samuel carried it by 78 voices, and . .
See AlsoSir William Soames v Sir Sam Barnardiston 1826
Action on the case lies not against a sheriff for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ. . .
See AlsoSir Samuel, Barnardiston v Sir Will Soames 1826
Whether an action on the case lies at common law against the sheriff for maliciously making a double return upon a writ to elect a member of Parliament. . .
See AlsoSir Samuel Barnardiston v Soames 1826
Case lies against the sheriff at common law for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ falsely, maliciously, and with intent to put the pIaintiff to expense. Disseni, Rainsford J . .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soames 1826
Case lies against the sheriff at common law for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ falsely, maliciously, and with intent to put the pIaintiff to expense. Disseni, Rainsford J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, Legal Professions

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.396989

Barnardiston v Soame: 1702

On the death of Sir Henry North, one of the knights for Suffolk ; a writ was issued forth for the election of a new member, and Sir Samuel Barnardiston and my Lord Huntingtowre were the two candidates ; but Sir Samuel carried it by 78 voices, and was returned ; and my Lord Huntingtowre having made an interest with the sheriff, got the sheriff to return him too, and he sat in the House till the election was there determined for Sir Samuel : whereupon Sir Samuel Barnardiston, for this double return, brought an action upon the case against the sheriff, and tried it at the King’s Bench Bar, 12 Nov. 1674, before my Lord Chief Justice Hale, and recovered 1000l damages : and afterwards a writ of error was brought in the Exchequer-Chamber, and there the judgment in the King’s-Bench was reversed :
North CJ said: ‘They who are intrusted to judge, ought to be free from vexation, that they may determine without fear; the law requires courage in a judge, and therefore provides security for the support of that courage.’

Judges:

North CJ

Citations:

[1702] EngR 9, (1702) Pollex 470, (1702) 86 ER 615

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 1) 1685
. .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 2) 1685
. .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 3) 1685
Offly for the plaintiff, that debt lieth pending error n 22 H, 6, 38, being a new original, which the Court agreed ; and a respondeas ouster ; and notwithstanding it was affirmed that judgment in debt pending error here was reversed in Exchequer . .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 4) 1685
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoSir William Soames v Sir Sam Barnardiston 1826
Action on the case lies not against a sheriff for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ. . .
See AlsoSir Samuel, Barnardiston v Sir Will Soames 1826
Whether an action on the case lies at common law against the sheriff for maliciously making a double return upon a writ to elect a member of Parliament. . .
See AlsoSir Samuel Barnardiston v Soames 1826
Case lies against the sheriff at common law for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ falsely, maliciously, and with intent to put the pIaintiff to expense. Disseni, Rainsford J . .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soames 1826
Case lies against the sheriff at common law for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ falsely, maliciously, and with intent to put the pIaintiff to expense. Disseni, Rainsford J . .
CitedMore v Weaver CA 11-Jul-1928
The appellant brought the latest of several actions, this time alleging defamation in letters from the respondent to her own solicitors making certain statements about the appellant. Those letters had become public in the course of the earlier . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Elections

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.392226

Sir William Soames v Sir Sam Barnardiston: 1826

Action on the case lies not against a sheriff for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ.

Citations:

[1826] EngR 556, (1826) Freem KB 430, (1826) 89 ER 321

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 1) 1685
. .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 2) 1685
. .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 3) 1685
Offly for the plaintiff, that debt lieth pending error n 22 H, 6, 38, being a new original, which the Court agreed ; and a respondeas ouster ; and notwithstanding it was affirmed that judgment in debt pending error here was reversed in Exchequer . .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 4) 1685
. .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soame 1702
On the death of Sir Henry North, one of the knights for Suffolk ; a writ was issued forth for the election of a new member, and Sir Samuel Barnardiston and my Lord Huntingtowre were the two candidates ; but Sir Samuel carried it by 78 voices, and . .

Cited by:

CitedSir Samuel, Barnardiston v Sir Will Soames 1826
Whether an action on the case lies at common law against the sheriff for maliciously making a double return upon a writ to elect a member of Parliament. . .
See AlsoSir Samuel Barnardiston v Soames 1826
Case lies against the sheriff at common law for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ falsely, maliciously, and with intent to put the pIaintiff to expense. Disseni, Rainsford J . .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soames 1826
Case lies against the sheriff at common law for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ falsely, maliciously, and with intent to put the pIaintiff to expense. Disseni, Rainsford J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Elections

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.325320

Barnardiston v Soames: 1826

Case lies against the sheriff at common law for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ falsely, maliciously, and with intent to put the pIaintiff to expense. Disseni, Rainsford J

Citations:

[1826] EngR 46, (1826) Freem KB 387, (1826) 89 ER 287 (C)

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 1) 1685
. .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 2) 1685
. .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 3) 1685
Offly for the plaintiff, that debt lieth pending error n 22 H, 6, 38, being a new original, which the Court agreed ; and a respondeas ouster ; and notwithstanding it was affirmed that judgment in debt pending error here was reversed in Exchequer . .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 4) 1685
. .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soame 1702
On the death of Sir Henry North, one of the knights for Suffolk ; a writ was issued forth for the election of a new member, and Sir Samuel Barnardiston and my Lord Huntingtowre were the two candidates ; but Sir Samuel carried it by 78 voices, and . .
See AlsoSir William Soames v Sir Sam Barnardiston 1826
Action on the case lies not against a sheriff for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ. . .
See AlsoSir Samuel, Barnardiston v Sir Will Soames 1826
Whether an action on the case lies at common law against the sheriff for maliciously making a double return upon a writ to elect a member of Parliament. . .
See AlsoSir Samuel Barnardiston v Soames 1826
Case lies against the sheriff at common law for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ falsely, maliciously, and with intent to put the pIaintiff to expense. Disseni, Rainsford J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Elections

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.324810

Sir Samuel Barnardiston v Soames: 1826

Case lies against the sheriff at common law for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ falsely, maliciously, and with intent to put the pIaintiff to expense. Disseni, Rainsford J

Citations:

[1826] EngR 550, (1826) Freem KB 390, (1826) 89 ER 290 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 1) 1685
. .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 2) 1685
. .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 3) 1685
Offly for the plaintiff, that debt lieth pending error n 22 H, 6, 38, being a new original, which the Court agreed ; and a respondeas ouster ; and notwithstanding it was affirmed that judgment in debt pending error here was reversed in Exchequer . .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 4) 1685
. .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soame 1702
On the death of Sir Henry North, one of the knights for Suffolk ; a writ was issued forth for the election of a new member, and Sir Samuel Barnardiston and my Lord Huntingtowre were the two candidates ; but Sir Samuel carried it by 78 voices, and . .
See AlsoSir William Soames v Sir Sam Barnardiston 1826
Action on the case lies not against a sheriff for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ. . .
See AlsoSir Samuel, Barnardiston v Sir Will Soames 1826
Whether an action on the case lies at common law against the sheriff for maliciously making a double return upon a writ to elect a member of Parliament. . .

Cited by:

See AlsoBarnardiston v Soames 1826
Case lies against the sheriff at common law for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ falsely, maliciously, and with intent to put the pIaintiff to expense. Disseni, Rainsford J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Elections

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.325314

Sir Samuel, Barnardiston v Sir Will Soames: 1826

Whether an action on the case lies at common law against the sheriff for maliciously making a double return upon a writ to elect a member of Parliament.

Citations:

[1826] EngR 551, (1826) Freem KB 380, (1826) 89 ER 283 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 1) 1685
. .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 2) 1685
. .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 3) 1685
Offly for the plaintiff, that debt lieth pending error n 22 H, 6, 38, being a new original, which the Court agreed ; and a respondeas ouster ; and notwithstanding it was affirmed that judgment in debt pending error here was reversed in Exchequer . .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soam (No 4) 1685
. .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soame 1702
On the death of Sir Henry North, one of the knights for Suffolk ; a writ was issued forth for the election of a new member, and Sir Samuel Barnardiston and my Lord Huntingtowre were the two candidates ; but Sir Samuel carried it by 78 voices, and . .
CitedSir William Soames v Sir Sam Barnardiston 1826
Action on the case lies not against a sheriff for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ. . .

Cited by:

See AlsoSir Samuel Barnardiston v Soames 1826
Case lies against the sheriff at common law for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ falsely, maliciously, and with intent to put the pIaintiff to expense. Disseni, Rainsford J . .
See AlsoBarnardiston v Soames 1826
Case lies against the sheriff at common law for making a double return to a Parliamentary writ falsely, maliciously, and with intent to put the pIaintiff to expense. Disseni, Rainsford J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Elections

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.325315

Devan Nair v Yong Kuan Teik: PC 1967

(Malaysia) The Malaysian election rules provide in certain circumstances for service by a notice published in the Gazette but such notice was in the event out of time.
Held: The respondent’s appeal should be allowed and the petition struck out.
Lord Upjohn said: ‘So the whole question is whether the provisions of rule 15 are ‘mandatory’ in the sense in which that word is used in the law ie, that a failure to comply strictly with the times laid down renders the proceedings a nullity; or ‘directory’, ie, that literal compliance with the time schedule may be waived or excused or the time may be enlarged by a judge . . Circumstances which weigh heavily with their Lordships in favour of a mandatory construction are: (1) The need in an election petition for a speedy determination of the controversy . . (2) In contrast, for example, to the Rules of the Supreme Court in this country, the rules vest no general power in the election judge to extend the time on the ground of irregularity. Their Lordships think this omission was a matter of deliberate design . . The case of Williams -v- Tenby Corporation which has stood the test of nearly 90 years and seems to their Lordships plainly rightly decided, strongly supports the view that the provisions of rule 15 were mandatory . . their Lordships cannot attribute weight to the circumstances that the rules contained no express power to strike out a petition for non-compliance with rule 15.’

Judges:

Lord Upjohn

Citations:

[1967] 2 AC 31

Citing:

CitedWilliams v Mayor of Tenby CCP 1879
The defendant had not given appropriate notices under the act and complained that his petition had been struck out: ‘It is said that there would be hardship supposing money deposited, if mere omission of notices should prevent a petition. I see no . .

Cited by:

CitedUllah and Others, Ahmed v Pagel, Scallan, Kennedy CA 12-Dec-2002
The claimants sought to issue election petitions to challenge the results of local elections. The petitioners had complied with all the rules save that they had failed to serve the notice of presentation within the five day period. The claimants . .
CitedAbsalom v Gillett QBD 1995
An application was made under rule 13 to strike out a local government election petition for non-compliance with s.136(3) and rule 6: the petitioners there had served the notice on the returning officer but had not served the successful candidates. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, Commonwealth

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.183167

The Shrewsbury Petition: Young v Figgins: 1869

The petitioners had properly complied with the section so far as service on the successful candidate went; they had not, however, served the returning officer who was a deemed respondent. Counsel for the successful candidate applied inter alia on this ground to strike out the petition. Counsel for the petitioners was not called upon.
Held: Martin, B. ‘Even if [counsel] were right in his arguments he should not allow such formal objections to defeat the petition, rule 60 saying that ‘no proceedings under the Parliamentary Elections Act 1868 shall be defeated by any formal objection’. He should therefore dismiss the summons.’

Judges:

Martin Baron

Citations:

(1869) 19 LT 499

Statutes:

Parliamentary Elections Act 1868 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

DoubtedUllah and Others, Ahmed v Pagel, Scallan, Kennedy CA 12-Dec-2002
The claimants sought to issue election petitions to challenge the results of local elections. The petitioners had complied with all the rules save that they had failed to serve the notice of presentation within the five day period. The claimants . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.181244

Regina v Henry Moore Griffiths: 11 Jun 1857

The high sheriff of a county, in August 1854, appointed G. election auditor for the county, under The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854 (17 and 18 Vict. c. 102, S. 15), to act at any elections for and during the year then next ensuing, and until another appointment should be made. No fresh appointment was made in 1855. In March 1856 the then high sheriff appointed W. election auditor for the current year. – On a rule for a quo warranto against G. :-Held, that it was not necessary that the appointment for 1855-1856 should be made during the month of August: that W. was well appointed ; and that, on his appointment, Q. ceased to be election auditor : and the rule was made absolute.

Citations:

[1857] EngR 661, (1857) 7 El and Bl 952, (1857) 119 ER 1501

Links:

Commonlii

Statutes:

Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854

Elections

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.290407

Re Lancashire Darwen Division, Case: 1885

Strong grounds for making an order for inspection of uncounted ballot papers must be shown, and the court must be satisfied that the application for it is made in good faith, and will rarely, if ever, grant it unless a petition or prosecution has been instituted or is about to be instituted and it is shown to be really required. The court refused to allow an inspection of the ballot papers in the absence of a petition, and doubted whether it had jurisdiction to make such an order unless on a petition.

Citations:

(1885) 2 TLR 220

Statutes:

Ballot Act 1872

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGough v Local Sunday Newspapers (North) Ltd and Another CA 12-Mar-2003
The appellant claimed he had been libelled, when he was called incompetent by the respondent in the way he dealt with finding an uncounted bundle of votes after an election. He appealed a finding of justification. The finding was based upon an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.179770

Hoggan, Provost of The Burgh of Kinghorn, Et Alii v William Wardlaw, Colonel James St Clair, Et Alii: HL 10 Mar 1735

Pactum illicitum – Member Of Parliament – A bond entered into by a portion of a body of electors, binding themselves to vote according to the opinion of the majority of their number, found to be contra bonos mores and illegal. The election following thereon annulled.
Borough Royal – The sett recorded in the books of the Convention of Royal Burghs must be adhered to, notwithstanding that previous contrary practice be alleged,

Citations:

[1735] UKHL 1 – Paton – 148, (1735) 1 Paton 148

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Elections

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.554575

Sauve v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer): 31 Oct 2002

Canlii Supreme Court of Canada – Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Right to vote – Prisoners – Canada Elections Act provision disqualifying persons imprisoned in correctional institution serving sentences of two years or more from voting in federal elections – Crown conceding that provision infringes right to vote – Whether infringement justified – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 3 – Canada Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-2, s. 51(e).
Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Equality rights – Prisoners – Canada Elections Act provision disqualifying persons imprisoned in correctional institution serving sentences of two years or more from voting in federal elections – Whether provision infringes equality rights – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 15(1) – Canada Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-2, s. 51(e).
Elections – Disqualifications of electors – Prisoners – Canada Elections Act provision disqualifying persons imprisoned in correctional institution serving sentences of two years or more from voting in federal elections – Whether provision constitutional – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 3, 15(1) – Canada Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-2, s. 51(e).

Judges:

McLachlin CJ and L’Heureux-Dube, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

Citations:

218 DLR (4th) 577, 168 CCC (3d) 449, 5 CR (6th) 203, 294 NR 1, JE 2002-1974, [2002] SCJ No 66 (QL), 117 ACWS (3d) 553, [2002] ACS no 66, 55 WCB (2d) 21, 98 CRR (2d) 1, [2002] 3 SCR 519, 2002 SCC 68 (CanLII)

Links:

Canlii

Cited by:

CitedChester, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 16-Oct-2013
The two applicants were serving life sentences for murder. Each sought damages for the unlawful withdrawal of their rights to vote in elections, and the failure of the British parliament to take steps to comply with the judgment.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Elections, Prisons, Constitutional

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.540466

The North Division of the County of Louth: 1911

Madden J explained the Act: ‘The Act of 1895 afforded a further protection to constituencies and to candidates. The mischief against which it was directed was an abuse of the right of free discussion by the dissemination among a constituency of false statements of fact, written or spoken, in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate . . Reading the section I find that the false statement must relate to personal character or conduct, ‘personal’ as distinguished from ‘public’, and it must be one of fact . . A public man in his candidature, as in Parliament, is liable to misrepresentations as to his public character or conduct, and it can be readily understood why the Legislature has not thought fit to protect either the constituency or the candidate against misrepresentations of this kind . . It has drawn the line of defence at a false statement of fact in relation to personal character or conduct . . The primary protection of this statute was the protection of the constituency against acts which would be fatal to freedom of election. There would be no true freedom of election, no real expression of the opinion of the constituency, if votes were given in consequence of the dissemination of a false statement as to the personal character of conduct of a candidate.’
An untrue statement of fact in an election publication may relate to the personal character of a candidate even though it also relates to his public or political character. Madden J said: ‘to represent a candidate who comes forward as a member of a Parliamentary party, bound by pledge to seek no favours from any administration, as a place-hunter, obtaining from the Government of the day lucrative employments for himself and his family and friends, is to accuse him of political misconduct. Whether he has sought for and obtained such favours is a question of fact, and a question of fact relating to his personal conduct. A false statement of fact relating to his personal conduct may be used for the purpose of representing a candidate as guilty of either private immorality or public immorality, political or otherwise, and it is in either case equally within the statute.’ and
‘A politician for his public conduct may be criticised, held up to obloquy; for that the statute gives no redress; but when the man beneath the politician has his honour, veracity and purity assailed, he is entitled to demand that his constituents shall not be poisoned against him by false statements containing such unfounded imputations.’
and: ‘A general recommending officers for promotion who had lent him money, a Minister who betrayed cabinet secrets to a foreign friend, would be guilty of official and political misconduct, which, as a matter of public concern, would merit comment; but such conduct would at the same time involve personal delinquency. If such person was candidate as at an election, and false charge of the above character was made, would it not be a false statement as to both personal character and conduct.?’

Judges:

Madden J, Gibson J

Citations:

(1911) 6 O’M and H 103

Statutes:

Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1895 1 2

Cited by:

CitedFairbairn v Scottish National Party 1979
Lord Ross held that a statement made during the course of an election campaign, which suggested that the pursuer (a member of parliament) did not collect his constituency mail from the House of Commons Post office was an attack on his character as a . .
CitedWatkins v Woolas QBD 5-Nov-2010
The petitioner said that in the course of the election campaign, the respondent Labour candidate had used illegal practices in the form of deliberately misleading and racially inflammatory material.
Held: The claim succeeded, and the election . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.425814

Attorney-General, ex rel McWhirter v Independent Broadcasting Authority: CA 1972

The court should not interfere in decisions made by broadcasting companies allocating television time to parties before elections unless it is of the view that they were irrational in not giving enough weight to those matters in allocating it only one broadcast.
The Bill of Rights does not restrict the Crown’s prerogative powers in relation to foreign affairs: ‘the Crown retained, as fully as ever, the prerogative of the treaty-making power’ and ‘Even though the Treaty of Rome has been signed, it has no effect, so far as these courts are concerned, until it is made an Act of Parliament. Once it is implemented by an Act of Parliament, these courts must go by the Act of Parliament. Until that day comes, we take no notice of it.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1973] 1 QB 629, [1972] CMLR 882

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v British Broadcasting Corporation, ex parte Referendum Party; Regina v Independent Television Commission, ex parte Referendum Party Admn 24-Apr-1997
The Referendum Party challenged the allocation to it of less time for election broadcasts. Under the existing agreements, having fielded over 50 candidates, they were allocated only five minutes.
Held: Neither the inclusion of past electoral . .
CitedMiller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union SC 24-Jan-2017
Parliament’s Approval if statute rights affected
In a referendum, the people had voted to leave the European Union. That would require a notice to the Union under Article 50 TEU. The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring Parliamentary approval before issuing the notice, he saying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Elections, Constitutional

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.181972

Regina (De Beer and Others) v Balabanoff, Returning Officer for the London Borough of Harrow: Admn 11 Apr 2002

Candidates in a local election submitted their nominations, but they were rejected by the returning officer. The original nominations were rejected because of the possibility of confusion between candidates. Amended papers were not properly executed, and again were rejected.
Held: The rules were clear, and the papers were not in order. The returning officer acted reasonably in rejecting them, since he had to act strictly within the rules. Judicial review refused.
Scott Baker J said, in the context of a submission that the court would have jurisdiction to interfere with a decision by a returning officer that a nomination paper was invalid: ‘It has not been argued before me that the court cannot interfere by way of judicial review, although it is fair to say that neither party was aware of any case where there has been a successful application for judicial review against a returning officer.
In my judgment, although judicial review does lie, this is an area in which the courts should be extremely slow to interfere with the decision of a returning officer. No doubt where a returning officer has plainly acted unlawfully relief will lie. But ordinarily returning officers should be left to conduct the election process as provided by Parliament.’

Judges:

Justice Scott Baker

Citations:

Times 25-Apr-2002, [2002] EWHC 670 (Admin)

Statutes:

Local Elections (Principal Areas) Rules 1986 (SI 1986 No 2214) 4A(1), Local Elections (Principal Areas) (Amendment) Rules 1999 (SI 1999 No 394)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBegum and others v Returning Officer for London Borough of Tower Hamlets CA 2-May-2006
Keith J had countermanded a forthcoming local election, and made an order under section 39(1) for a new election. The claimants had sought to stand but had not been allowed to do so, the returning officer having rejected their nomination papers. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.170173

Williams v Mayor of Tenby: CCP 1879

The defendant had not given appropriate notices under the act and complained that his petition had been struck out: ‘It is said that there would be hardship supposing money deposited, if mere omission of notices should prevent a petition. I see no more hardship than may occur in any case where a definite time is to be observed, and I see good reason why it should be so. There are two alternatives given, and it is reasonable that the parties should know which has been adopted, viz deposit or recognisance, and, if the latter, that he should be set instantly on inquiry whether the securities are good and valid or not. [The judge then referred to the relevant rules which provided for any objection to the proposed security to be made within five days] So not only is the person depositing security limited by the rules as to time, but the person objecting to the security is limited likewise. If we were to carve out of this procedure what is permissive and what is peremptory, we should launch persons into greater litigation than even they embark on, for we should be asked to vary the particular time in each case. I think the petitioners in these cases are advised by competent persons, and ought to pursue the provisions of the Act. One other argument was founded on rule 44, that ‘all interlocutory questions and matters, except as to the sufficiency of the security, shall be heard and disposed of before a judge, who shall have the same control over the proceedings under the [1872 Act] as a judge at chambers in the ordinary proceedings of the superior Courts . . ‘. That rule seems to leave the question where it is. If it is matter of procedure, then the judge will have some powers. But if the Act does not give these powers, then he has them not. The question still is whether the provisions of the Act are or are not peremptory. I think they are peremptory, and that the terms not complied with are conditions precedent which ought to be complied with before the petition could be presented. The appeal must be dismissed.’

Judges:

Lopes J, Grove J

Citations:

[1879] 5 CPD 135

Statutes:

Municipal Elections Act 1872 13(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedUllah and Others, Ahmed v Pagel, Scallan, Kennedy CA 12-Dec-2002
The claimants sought to issue election petitions to challenge the results of local elections. The petitioners had complied with all the rules save that they had failed to serve the notice of presentation within the five day period. The claimants . .
CitedDevan Nair v Yong Kuan Teik PC 1967
(Malaysia) The Malaysian election rules provide in certain circumstances for service by a notice published in the Gazette but such notice was in the event out of time.
Held: The respondent’s appeal should be allowed and the petition struck . .
CitedAbsalom v Gillett QBD 1995
An application was made under rule 13 to strike out a local government election petition for non-compliance with s.136(3) and rule 6: the petitioners there had served the notice on the returning officer but had not served the successful candidates. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.181800

Coughlan, Regina (on The Application of) v The Minister for The Cabinet Office and Another: CA 5 Jun 2020

Judges:

Lord Justice Underhill
(Vice-President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division)
Lord Justice Mccombe
And
Lord Justice Green

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 723, [2020] 1 WLR 3300, [2020] 1 WLR 3300, [2020] HRLR 14, [2020] WLR(D) 323

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Representation of the People Act 2000 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromCoughlan, Regina (on The Application of) v Minister for The Cabinet Office SC 27-Apr-2022
In August 2018 the Cabinet Office invited local authorities to take part in voter ID pilot schemes. Under these schemes, voters would not be allowed to vote in polling booths unless they had a form of ID on them, such as a driver’s licence. On 3 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.651197

Nairn and Others v St Andrews and Edinburgh Universities’ University Courts and Others: HL 10 Dec 1908

On a consideration of the statutes dealing with the franchise for universities, that women graduates of a Scottish university are not entitled to vote at the election of a Member of Parliament for the university, and, not being voters, are not entitled to receive voting papers from the registrar of the university.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Ashbourne, Lord Robertson, and Lord Collins

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 132, 46 SLR 132

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Elections, Education, Discrimination

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621531

Spain v United Kingdom: ECJ 12 Sep 2006

ECJ Law Governing – The Institutions – European Parliament – Elections – Right to vote – Commonwealth citizens residing in Gibraltar and not having citizenship of the Union.

Citations:

C-145/04, [2006] EUECJ C-145/04, Times 07-Nov-2006, [2006] ECR I-7917

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedChester, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 16-Oct-2013
The two applicants were serving life sentences for murder. Each sought damages for the unlawful withdrawal of their rights to vote in elections, and the failure of the British parliament to take steps to comply with the judgment.
Held: The . .
CitedRoutier and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 16-Oct-2019
A Jersey Charity created under a will of a Jersey resident was transfer to the UK, and reregistered with the UK Charity Commission. The Revenue sought to apply Inheritance Tax.
Held: Jersey was to be considered a third country for the purpose . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections

Updated: 21 April 2022; Ref: scu.245006

The Good Law Project, Regina (on The Application of) v Electoral Commission and Another: Admn 23 Mar 2018

The claimant interest group sought judicial review of alleged failure of the Electoral Commission properly to discharge its responsibility to oversee spending of Vote Leave Limited and certain other campaigners in the period leading up to the referendum held in June 2016 on whether or not the UK should remain a member of the European Union. Permission to proceed with the claim was refused when the claim was considered on the papers but the request for permission has been renewed at an oral hearing.

Judges:

Leggatt LJ, Holgate J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 602 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Elections

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.608928

Regina v Cripps, ex parte Muldoon: QBD 1984

C, a barrister was appointed to hear an election petition under section 115. The petitioners later sought an order of certiorari to quash his costs award. It was claimed that no such remedy lay against the tribunal.
Held: Certiorari would lie. Once the election court had made its order, it was functus officio, and not free to return to its earlier order and amend it under the slip rule. Goff LJ observed that the Court-Martial Appeal Court and the Restrictive Practices Court were simple examples of courts which were not inferior for the purposes of judicial review.

Judges:

Goff LJ

Citations:

[1984] 1 QB 68

Statutes:

Representation of the People Act 1949 110, 115

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCart and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others Admn 1-Dec-2009
The court was asked whether the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, exercisable by way of judicial review, extends to such decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) as are not amenable to any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Elections

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.442690

Shetland Islands Council v Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland; Orkney Islands Council v Same: OHCS 15 Mar 1999

Provided it could be seen from their report that the Commissioners had properly addressed themselves to the central statutory issues, a failure to refer explicitly to a report of the Secretary of State did not invalidate it.

Citations:

Times 15-Mar-1999

Elections

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.89230

Ex P Sanders: QBD 30 May 1994

A returning officer’s decision on the validity of any aspect of the election was was final. Any challenge had to be made only after the election. Leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Judges:

Sedley J

Citations:

Times 30-May-1994

Elections

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80409

Henry Aneley v Charles Edward Lewis: 31 Jan 1855

A purchaser of freehold land (sufficient in other respects to confer a qualification to vote in the election of members), to whom no conveyance has been made, and who has not been let into possession, does not acquire a right to be registered, under the 74th section of the 6 and 7 Vict e. 18, although he has actually paid the whole purchase-money.

Citations:

[1855] EngR 175, (1855) 17 CB 316, (1855) 139 ER 1094

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Elections

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.292097

English Democrats Party v Electoral Commission: Admn 14 Feb 2018

The claimant party challenged the removal by the defendant of elements of their description on their registration as a political party.

Judges:

Supperstone J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 251 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 107

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Elections, Administrative

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605602

Rahman, Regina (on The Application of) v The Local Government Election Court: Admn 21 Jun 2017

Application for permission to amend the grounds of a judicial review claim of a decision of the Local Government Election Court which found the Applicant personally guilty and guilty by his agents of a number of electoral offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983.
Held: Refused

Judges:

Llloyd Jones LJ

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1413 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Elections

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588892

The Electoral Commission v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Admn 22 Jan 2009

The UKIP had accepted donations from a man whose name through inadvertence was not listed on the electoral register. The commission sought to impose a forfeit of an equal amount.
Held: Parliament had rejected the suggested test of entitlement to vote and imposed a requirement that the name be on the register. The court’s task was to further the policy of the statute. There was no presumption in favour of forfeiture, and property rights should not be interfered with save where such an intention is clearly shown.

Judges:

Walker J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 78 (Admin), [2009] ACD 23

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromElectoral Commission, Regina (On the Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another CA 19-Oct-2009
The UKIP party had accepted substantial donations. The donor had, through, he said, inadvertent error, had failed to ensure that he appeared on the electoral roll. The party had not taken all reasonable steps to verify his registration as required. . .
At First InstanceThe Electoral Commission, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another SC 29-Jul-2010
UKIP, a political party had accepted donations from an individual who had ceased to be a registered voter. An application had been made for forfeiture of the sums given. The court was now asked whether the Act created a presumption in favour of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, Administrative

Updated: 25 February 2022; Ref: scu.282618

Cockermouth Division of the County of Cumberland: 1901

In construing the validity of statements made during an election, the court distinguished between false statements of fact, affecting personal character or conduct, and false statements of fact, dealing with the political position, reputation or action of the candidate.

Judges:

Darling J

Citations:

(1901) 5 O’M and H

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAehmed v Afzal and Another QBD 2-Apr-2008
The claimant candidate in a local government election challenged the election of his opponent as void since was alleged to have conducted a smear campaign.
Held: It was not for the defendant to have to prove the truth of what he said in a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.270362

Young and Others v Burgh of Darvel: HL 2 Nov 1922

A poll under the Temperance (Scotland) Act 1913 and a municipal election took place on the same day, in the same place, before the same presiding officers, and by means of the same ballot boxes, distinctively coloured ballot papers being issued to the electors who came to the polling stations. In an action for reduction of the poll in connection with the Temperance Act, on the ground, inter alia, that it was illegal to hold the two polls together, held ( aff. the judgment of the First Division) that the course adopted of taking the polls together was not in itself illegal.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor, Viscount Haldane, Viscount Finlay, Lord Dunedin, and Lord Shaw

Citations:

[1922] UKHL 48, 60 SLR 48

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Elections

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.632812

The King v The Mayor, Aldermen, And Burgesses Of The City And Borough Of Oxford: 28 Jan 1837

If a councillor of a corporation be ousted, and another elected in his stead, and such election be merely colourable, a mandamus will go to permit the ousted party to exercise his office, but not to restore him to his office. If such ouster and election be bona fide, the Court will not grant a mandamus in favour of the party displaced :
the proper Proceeding is by quo warrarnto against the party holding the office de facto. Quaere, whether, if a party be elected a councillor, and duly qualified at the time of his election, and his name be afterwards improperly omitted in the burgess-list before his time of service as a councillor is expired, such omission vacate the office of councillor. If so, quaere, whether the office be absolutely vacant before notice to that effect be given, under sect. 52 of stat, 5 and 6 W. 4, c. 76.

[1837] EngR 453, (1837) 6 Ad and E 349, (1837) 112 ER 133
Commonlii
England and Wales

Local Government, Elections

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.313570

Choudry and others v Triesman: ChD 31 Mar 2003

The applicants sought an order requiring the respondent general secretary of the Labour Party to allow them to stand as candidates for the party in the forthcoming local elections. After allegations about the way in which selection had been carried out, the party imposed its own candidates.
Held: The principles for the grant of mandatory interim injunctions had been laid down in Nottingham Building Society. Here, a serious triable issue had been raised, but the risk of injustice would be greater if the injunction were granted than if not. If granted the party would not have the election candidates of its choice, but if not granted, the candidates would still be able to stand for election.
Stanley Burton J said of the Labour Party: ‘Its constitution is contained in its rules contained in the rule book, which constitute a contract to which each member adheres when he joins the party’

Stanley Burton J
Times 02-May-2003, Gazette 05-Jun-2003, [2003] EWHC 1203 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedNottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems plc 1993
The court laid down tests for the granting of mandatory interim injunctions. The court should consider whether there was a high degree of confidence that the applicant would succeed in establishing his right at trial. The higher that confidence, the . .

Cited by:
CitedFoster v McNicol and Another QBD 28-Jul-2016
Incumbent Labour leader did not need nominations
The claimant challenged a decision of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party to allow its present Leader to stand in the leadership election challenging his position without the need for him to submit first the otherwise standard . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, Contract

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.181839

Erlam and Others v Rahman and Another: QBD 23 Apr 2015

The petitioners had alleged that the respondent, in his or his agent’s conduct of his campaign to be elected Mayor for Tower Hamlets in London in May 2014, had engaged in corrupt and illegal practices.
Held: The election was set aside for corrupt practice. The general burden of proof both in respect of the charges of corrupt or illegal practices and in respect of the allegation of general corruption must necessarily rest on the Petitioner. Although there are instances when the burden may shift to the Respondent (such as under s 158(3). . ), they do not affect the general rule itself.
Electoral law took the position that those who participated in the candidate’s campaign would be treated as agents for the candidate. By contrast, members of the wider public who merely manifested support for the candidate would not be ‘agents’ for electoral purposes.

Richard Mawrey QC Commissioner
[2015] EWHC 1215 (QB)
Bailii
Representation of the People Act 1983, Election Petition Rules 1960
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedWatkins v Woolas QBD 5-Nov-2010
The petitioner said that in the course of the election campaign, the respondent Labour candidate had used illegal practices in the form of deliberately misleading and racially inflammatory material.
Held: The claim succeeded, and the election . .
CitedThe Wakefield Case XVII 1874
The court considered who was an agent in election law: ‘By election law the doctrine of agency is carried further than in other cases. By the ordinary law of agency a person is not responsible for the acts of those whom he has not authorised, or . .
CitedLeech v Governor of Parkhurst Prison HL 1988
The House was asked whether a disciplinary decision by a governor was amenable to judicial review.
Held: The functions of a governor adjudicating upon disciplinary charges are separate and distinct from his functions in running the prison; . .
CitedRegina v Rowe, ex parte Mainwaring and Others CA 27-May-1992
Shortly before polling day in a local government election Liberal Democrat supporters printed and distributed in key wards a leaflet that made assertions about Labour policy. It was distributed in such a way as not to alert voters as to its true . .
CitedWoolas, Regina (on The Application of) v The Speaker of The House of Commons Admn 3-Dec-2010
The claimant sought to challenge the decision of an Election court setting aside his election as a Member of Parliament. The court was asked to decide whether it had jurisdiction to review a determination by the Election Court of a point of law, and . .
CitedShoesmith, Regina (on The Application of) v OFSTED and Others CA 27-May-2011
The claimant appealed against dismissal of her claim. She had been head of Child Services at Haringey. After the notorious violent death of Baby P, the Secretary of State called for an inquiry under the Act. He then removed her as director. She . .
CitedWillford, Regina (on The Application of) v Financial Services Authority (FSA) CA 13-Jun-2013
Where a separate specialist statutory regime has been established by Parliament, there would need to be powerful reasons or exceptional circumstances to bypass that regime and permit an application for judicial review.
The Court considered and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, News

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.546270

The Honourable Alexander Hume Campbell v David Hume, Esq Sheriff-Depute of Berwickshire, and John Sinclair: HL 1 Mar 1743

No action lies upon this statute against the Sheriff, for making a double return; but action lies against the clerk chosen by the minority of the meeting, who secede from the rest, for returning to the Sheriff the candidate elected by that minority. ( – Member of Parliament. – Act 7. Geo. II. c. 16.)

[1743] UKHL 1 – Paton – 346, (1743) 1 Paton 346
Bailii
Scotland

Elections

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556794

Alexander Mill of Hatton, William Ross, and David Butter, Baillies of The Town of Montrose, for Themselves and Other Magistrates of The Said Town v Colonel Robert Reid and Others, Members of The Town Council of The Said Burgh: HL 23 Jan 1723

Member of parliament – In an action to reduce the election of certain magistrates of a royal burgh, on account of the imprisonment of certain of the electors by the provost, who was a member of parliament: the provost’s privilege of parliament could not be pleaded to stop the declarator against the other defenders, as not elected by a sufficient quorum:
And the provost’s privilege of parliament could not stop the pursuers from insisting upon the reason of reduction, that some of the electors were unwarrantably imprisoned by the provost.
Burgh Royal -It was relevant to annul the election of magistrates, that the provost had unwarrantably imprisoned some of the electors, during the time of the election, with an intention to prevent their giving their votes at that election.

[1723] UKHL Robertson – 452, (1723) Robertson 452
Bailii

Scotland, Elections, Constitutional, Magistrates

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553793

Delvigne v Commune de Lesparre-Medoc: ECJ 6 Oct 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Articles 39 and 49 – European Parliament – Elections – Right to vote – Citizenship of the European Union – Retroactive effect of the more lenient criminal law – National legislation providing for the deprivation of the right to vote in the case of a criminal conviction by a final judgment delivered before 1 March 1994

[2016] CEC 599, [2015] EUECJ C-650/13, [2015] WLR(D) 402, ECLI:EU:C:2015:648, [2016] 2 CMLR 1, [2016] 1 WLR 1223
Bailii, WLRD
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
European

Human Rights, Elections, Human Rights

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553094

Chester, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 16 Oct 2013

The two applicants were serving life sentences for murder. Each sought damages for the unlawful withdrawal of their rights to vote in elections, and the failure of the British parliament to take steps to comply with the judgment.
Held: The appeals failed.
Lord Mance summarised the reasons for his conclusions: ‘(A) Human Rights Act
In respect of Chester’s claim under the Human Rights Act, which only relates to elections to the European and United Kingdom Parliaments, I would decline the Attorney General’s invitation to this Court not to apply the principles in Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (2005) 42 EHRR 41 (‘Hirst (No 2)’) and Scoppola v Italy (No 3) (2013) 56 EHRR 19 (paras 34-35) (‘Scoppola’), but also decline to make any further declaration of incompatibility with the Convention rights.
(B) European law
a. In respect of McGeoch’s and Chester’s claims under European law, which can at most relate to elections to the European Parliament and municipal authorities (paras 9, 45 and 46), I conclude that European law does not incorporate any right to vote paralleling that recognised by the European Court of Human Rights in its case-law or any other individual right to vote which is engaged or upon which, if engaged, they are able to rely.
b. Had European law conferred any right to vote on which McGeoch and Chester can rely:
i. the only relief that might have been considered would have been a generally phrased declaration that the legislative provisions governing eligibility to vote in European Parliamentary and municipal elections in the United Kingdom were inconsistent with European Community or Union law but that would not have appeared appropriate in the particular cases of Chester and McGeoch;
ii. the general ban on voting in European Parliamentary and municipal elections could not have been disapplied as a whole;
iii. it would not have been possible to read the RPA section 3 or EPEA section 8 compatibly with European law;
iv. the Supreme Court could not itself devise a scheme or arrangements that would or might pass muster with European law; that would be for Parliament;
v. neither of the appellants could have had any arguable claim for damages in respect of any breach of European law which may be involved in RPA section 3 and/or EPEA section 8.
(C) European Court of Justice
The resolution of these appeals does not necessitate a reference to the European Court of Justice. In so far as it raises issues of European law for determination, they are either not open to reasonable doubt or involve the application by this Court to the facts of established principles of European law.
(D) Both appeals fall therefore, in my opinion, to be dismissed
Baroness Hale said that when the court was considering remedies under the 1998 Act it should adopt the ‘sensible practice’ of asking in what way the particular claimant’s Convention rights had been violated. She continued:’That leaves the possibility of a declaration of incompatibility under section 4(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998. This applies ‘in any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of primary legislation is compatible with a Convention right’: section 4(1). This does appear to leave open the possibility of a declaration in abstracto, irrespective of whether the provision in question is incompatible with the rights of the individual litigant. There may be occasions when that would be appropriate. But in my view the court should be extremely slow to make a declaration of incompatibility at the instance of an individual litigant with whose own rights the provision in question is not incompatible. Any other approach is to invite a multitude of unmeritorious claims.’

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Hope, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes
[2013] UKSC 63, [2014] 1 AC 271, [2014] HRLR 3, [2013] 3 WLR 1076, [2014] 1 All ER 683, [2013] WLR(D) 392, [2014] 1 CMLR 45, 2014 SC (UKSC) 25, 2014 SLT 143, 2013 GWD 34-676, UKSC 2012/0151
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Act 1998 4(2)
Scotland
Citing:
At First InstanceChester, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 28-Oct-2009
Burton J dismissed a claim for judicial review brought by the serving prisoner, to challenge his statutory disfranchisement from voting in domestic and European Parliamentary elections. . .
Appeal fromChester v Secretary of State for Justice and Wakefield Metropolitan District Council CA 17-Dec-2010
The prisoner claimant appealed against refusal of his request for judicial review of his disenfranchisement whilst a prisoner.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. It was not possible to read into the Act as suggested a duty on a judge on . .
CitedMatthews v The United Kingdom ECHR 18-Feb-1999
Member states have obligations to ensure that citizens of each state were given opportunity to vote in European elections. Britain failed to give the vote to its citizens in Gibraltar in breach of the convention right to participate in free . .
CitedHirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
CitedBarclay and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Others SC 1-Dec-2009
The claimants said that restrictions within the constitution of Sark on who could sit in the Chief Pleas were incompatible with their human rights. The claimants variously owned property on Sark but had restricted rights to vote and stand.
CitedGreens v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Nov-2010
The applicants alleged a violation of article 3 in the refusal to allow them to enrol on the electoral register whilst serving prison sentences.
Held: Where one of its judgments raises issues of general public importance and sensitivity, in . .
CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
CitedScoppola v Italy (No 3) ECHR 22-May-2012
(Grand Chamber) A prisoner serving a sentence of 30 years imprisonment for murder, attempted murder and other offences object to his disenfranchisement under Italian law. . .
CitedMcLean and Cole v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Jun-2013
The applicants complained that, as convicted prisoners, they had been subject to a blanket ban on voting in elections and had been, or would be, prevented from voting in one or more of the following: elections to the European Parliament on 4 June . .
CitedMcLean and Cole v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Jun-2013
The applicants complained that, as convicted prisoners, they had been subject to a blanket ban on voting in elections and had been, or would be, prevented from voting in one or more of the following: elections to the European Parliament on 4 June . .
CitedAnchugov And Gladkov v Russia ECHR 4-Jul-2013
. .
CitedSoyler v Turkey ECHR 17-Sep-2013
. .
CitedAnimal Defenders International v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Apr-2013
ECHR (Grand Chamber) Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Refusal of permission for non-governmental organisation to place television advert owing to statutory prohibition of political advertising: no . .
CitedManchester City Council v Pinnock SC 9-Feb-2011
The council tenant had wished to appeal following a possession order made after her tenancy had been demoted. The court handed down a supplemental judgment to give effect to its earlier decision. The Court had been asked ‘whether article 8 of the . . .
CitedSauve v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) 31-Oct-2002
Canlii Supreme Court of Canada – Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Right to vote – Prisoners – Canada Elections Act provision disqualifying persons imprisoned in correctional institution serving sentences . .
CitedSpain v United Kingdom ECJ 12-Sep-2006
ECJ Law Governing The Institutions – European Parliament – Elections – Right to vote – Commonwealth citizens residing in Gibraltar and not having citizenship of the Union. . .
CitedEman and Sevinger (European Citizenship) ECJ 12-Sep-2006
ECJ (Opinion) European Parliament – Elections – Right to vote – Requirements of residence in the Netherlands for Netherlands citizens of Aruba – Citizenship of the Union. . .
CitedSmith v KD Scott, Electoral Registration Officer SCS 24-Jan-2007
The prisoner claimed that his right to vote had not been re-instated despite a year having passed since the European Court of Human Rights had found that the withdrawal of that right for prisoners was an infringement.
Held: It was not possible . .
CitedGreens v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Nov-2010
The applicants alleged a violation of article 3 in the refusal to allow them to enrol on the electoral register whilst serving prison sentences.
Held: Where one of its judgments raises issues of general public importance and sensitivity, in . .
CitedVinter And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Jul-2013
(Grand Chamber) The three appellants had each been convicted of exceptionally serious murders, and been sentenced to mandatory life sentences, but with provision that they could not be eligible for early release, making them whole life terms. They . .
CitedMangold v Helm ECJ 22-Nov-2005
ECJ Grand Chamber – Directive 1999/70/EC – Clauses 2, 5 and 8 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work – Directive 2000/78/EC – Article 6 – Equal treatment as regards employment and occupation – Age . .
CitedKucukdevici v Swedex GmbH ECJ 7-Jul-2007
ECJ Directive 2000/78/EC in principle non’discrimination age – National legislation on dismissal not taking into account the period of service completed before the employee reaches the age of 25 to calculate the . .
CitedBartsch v Bosch und Siemens Hausgerate (BSH) Altersfursorge GmbH ECJ 23-Sep-2008
ECJ Equal treatment in employment and occupation Article 13 EC Directive 2000/78/EC Occupational pension scheme excluding the right to a pension of a spouse more than 15 years younger than the deceased former . .
CitedFrancovich, Bonifaci and others v Italy ECJ 19-Nov-1991
LMA The claimants, a group of ex-employees sought arrears of wages on their employers’ insolvency. The European Directive required Member States to provide a guarantee fund to ensure payment of employees’ arrears . .
CitedBrasserie du Pecheur v Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame and others (4) ECJ 5-Mar-1996
Member states may be liable to individuals for their failure to implement EU laws. The right of individuals to rely on directly applicable provisions of the EC Treaty before national courts is not sufficient in itself to ensure full and complete . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others (No 5) HL 28-Oct-1999
A member state’s breach of European Law, where the law was clear and the national legislation had the effect of discriminating unlawfully against citizens of other members states, was sufficiently serious to justify an award of damages against that . .
CitedRobins and Others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ECJ 25-Jan-2007
ECJ Free movement of persons – Protection of employees in the event of the employer’s insolvency – Directive 80/987/EEC Transposition Article 8 Supplementary company or inter-company pension schemes – Old-age . .
CitedKucukdeveci v Swedex GmbH and Co KG ECJ 19-Jan-2010
ECJ Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age – Directive 2000/78/EC – National legislation on dismissal not taking into account the period of employment completed before the employee reaches the age of . .
CitedFrodl v Austria ECHR 8-Apr-2010
The applicant alleged that his disenfranchisement because he was serving a term of imprisonment of more than one year constituted a breach of his rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. . .
CitedRegina v H M Treasury, ex parte British Telecommunications ECJ 26-Mar-1996
The Government should not be ordered to pay compensation for failing to implement a European Directive which remained ambiguous. A failure to implement a directive into national law may be actionable but there would normally be only small damages. . .

Cited by:
CitedNicholas v Secretary of State for Defence CA 4-Feb-2015
The claimant wife of a Squadron Leader occupied a military house with her husband under a licence from the defendant. When the marriage broke down, he defendant gave her notice to leave. She now complained that the arrangement was discriminatory and . .
CitedHaney and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice SC 10-Dec-2014
The four claimants, each serving indeterminate prison sentences, said that as they approached the times when thy might apply for parol, they had been given insufficient support and training to meet the requirements for release. The courts below had . .
CitedT and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another SC 18-Jun-2014
T and JB, asserted that the reference in certificates issued by the state to cautions given to them violated their right to respect for their private life under article 8 of the Convention. T further claims that the obligation cast upon him to . .
CitedWalker v Innospec Ltd and Others SC 12-Jul-2017
The claimant appealed against refusal of his employer’s pension scheme trustees to include as a recipient of any death benefit his male civil partner.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The salary paid to Mr Walker throughout his working life was . .
CitedHallam, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 30-Jan-2019
These appeals concern the statutory provisions governing the eligibility for compensation of persons convicted of a criminal offence where their conviction is subsequently quashed (or they are pardoned) because of the impact of fresh evidence. It . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights, Elections, European

Leading Case

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.516496

Brantley and Others v Constituency Boundaries Commission and Others: PC 11 May 2015

Saint Christopher and Nevis – the parties disputed the implementation of constituency boundary changes in anticipation of a forthcoming election.
Held: The declaration having been made onlay after parliament had been dissolved, could only take affect in the election next following parliament having re-assembled.

Lord Mance
Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge
[2015] UKPC 21, [2015] WLR(D) 209
Bailii, WLRD

Commonwealth, Elections, Constitutional

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546862

McHugh And Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 10 Feb 2015

The applicants were all incarcerated at the relevant time following criminal convictions for a variety of offences. They were automatically prevented from voting, pursuant to primary legislation, in one or more of the following elections: elections to the European Parliament on 4 June 2009; the parliamentary election on 6 May 2010; and elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Irish Assembly on 5 May 2011 (for further details see the appended table).

Paivi Hirvela, P
51987/08 – Committee Judgment, [2015] ECHR 155
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights

Human Rights, Elections, Prisons

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542456

Niedzwiedz v Poland: ECHR 11 Mar 2008

The applicant, a convicted serving prisoner complained that he had not been allowed to vote in presidential and parliamentary elections, and in a referendum on Poland’s accession to the EU.
Held: The Court rejected the claims in respect of (i) and (iii) ratione materiae because the A3P1 obligations related to the choice of legislature.

Nicolas Bratza, P
ECHR
European Convention on Human Rights
Cited by:
CitedMoohan and Another v The Lord Advocate SC 17-Dec-2014
The petitioners, convicted serving prisoners, had sought judicial review of the refusal to allow them to vote in the Scottish Referendum on Independence. The request had been refused in the Outer and Inner Houses.
Held: (Kerr, Wilson JJSC . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Elections

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541522

Tozer v Child: 1857

(1857) 7 El and Bl 377, (1857) 119 ER 1286
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedThree Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England HL 18-May-2000
The applicants alleged misfeasance against the Bank of England in respect of the regulation of a bank.
Held: The Bank could not be sued in negligence, but the tort of misfeasance required clear evidence of misdeeds. The action was now properly . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, Torts – Other

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.194971

Cullen v Morris: 1819

(1819) 2 Stark 577, (1819) 171 ER 741
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedThree Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England HL 18-May-2000
The applicants alleged misfeasance against the Bank of England in respect of the regulation of a bank.
Held: The Bank could not be sued in negligence, but the tort of misfeasance required clear evidence of misdeeds. The action was now properly . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, Torts – Other

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.194972

Regina v Cripps; Ex parte Muldoon: QBD 1983

The election commissioner, Mr Anthony Cripps QC, had purported to explain many months later what he had meant in an order for costs which he had made when handing down his judgment on an election petition. It was argued that he had had the power to do so under the slip rule (a power conferred on the High Court by Ord. 20 r. 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court), which was a power which had been conferred on him by sections 115(6) and 110(2) of the 1949 Act. The Court was asked to determine whether or not an election court is an inferior tribunal. Having referred to certain cases, Goff LJ observed that it was difficult to extract any precise principle from them and then observed: ‘The most that can be said is that it is necessary to look at all the relevant features of the tribunal in question including its constitution, jurisdiction and powers and its relationship with the High Court in order to decide whether the tribunal should properly be regarded as inferior to the High Court, so that its activities may appropriately be the subject of judicial review by the High Court . . there is an underlying policy in the case of tribunals of limited jurisdiction, whether limited by area, subject matter or otherwise, that unless the tribunal in question should properly be regarded in all the circumstances as having a status so closely equivalent to the High Court that the exercise of power of judicial review by the High Court is for that reason inappropriate, it is in the public interest that remedies by way of judicial review by the High Court should be available to persons aggrieved;’
‘We accept that the powers of a judge of the High Court include the power to operate the slip rule. However, there must be doubt whether this power was conferred on Mr Cripps under section 115(6) of the Act for the purpose in question. For, once he had made his order, the election court which consisted of him was functus officio and had ceased to exist. Of course, where a High Court judge sitting in the High Court exercises his power under the slip rule to correct accidental errors, he can do so because, although his order has been drawn up, the High Court has not ceased to exist. He can therefore exercise the jurisdiction under R.S.C., Ord. 20, r.11, which is vested in the High Court as such; indeed, it appears to us, if in any particular case the trial judge was not available (for example, because he had died) after the drawing up of the order, another judge of the High Court could exercise the power of the High Court under the slip rule to correct an accidental error. It appears that when an election court has ceased to exist the exercise of powers under the slip rule to correct accidental errors should be made not by the barrister who formerly constituted the election court, but by the High Court by virtue of its powers under section 137(3) of the Act of 1949 . . ‘

Robert Goff LJ, mann J
[1983] 3 WLR 465, [1984] QB 68, [1983] 3 All ER 72
Representation of the People Act 1949 110(2) 115(6)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromRegina v Cripps; Ex parte Muldoon CA 1984
The Elections Commissioner had sought, some time after his order on a petition, to clarify the order from costs.
Held: The Commissioner, and in turn Keith J, had been wrong to consider themselves not bound by Muldoon. What Mr Cripps (the . .
CitedThe Conservative and Unionist Party v The Election Commissioner CA 23-Nov-2010
A losing candidate at a local election alleged corrupt and illegal practices relating to the entry of non-existent people on the electoral roll and using postal votes. The Election Commissioner found this proved and the election void, and awarded . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.654117

Taunton Election Petition, In re; Marshall v James: CCP 29 May 1874

A petition against the return of the member for Taunton was filed in November 1873. The trial commenced on the 12th of January, 1874, and on the morning of the 26th, at about 10.30, the judge gave judgment declaring the respondent to have been duly elected, and ordering the petitioners to pay the respondent’s costs. This decision was indorsed on the petition, and before noon the judge signed a certificate and report of his determination, and caused them to he posted addressed to the Speaker of the House of Commons. On the same day, after this had been done, but before the certificate and report actually reached the hands of the Speaker, parliament was dissolved by royal proclamation. The certificate and report of the judge were communicated by the Speaker to the new House on its first meeting, and were ordered to be entered on the journals. Held, that the dissolution of parliament after the decision was pronounced and the certificate signed by the judge and put in transit to the Speaker, though before the certificate actually reached the Speaker’s hands, did not affect the right of the respondent to have his costs taxed.

Lord Coleridge CJ, Brett and Grove JJ
(1873-1874) LR 9 CP 702, [1874] UKLawRpCP 51
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedThe Conservative and Unionist Party v The Election Commissioner CA 23-Nov-2010
A losing candidate at a local election alleged corrupt and illegal practices relating to the entry of non-existent people on the electoral roll and using postal votes. The Election Commissioner found this proved and the election void, and awarded . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, Costs

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.654118

The Conservative and Unionist Party v The Election Commissioner and Others: Admn 19 Feb 2010

A local election result had been set aside for fraud in the winning Conservative candidate. The Commissioner made an order for costs against his party which was now challenged for lack of jurisdiction the Commissioner being functus officio, and the court was now asked to determine the extent to which someone who was not a party to an election petition might nevertheless be ordered to pay the costs of someone who was a party to it.
Held: Keith J accepted the proposition that the law did not permit an adverse order for the costs of an election petition to be made against a person or entity who was not a party to that petition. On the second issue, he considered himself bound by decisions of the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal in R. v. Cripps ex parte Muldoon to conclude that the Election Court ceased to exist when it made its determination under s. 145 of the 1983 Act.
Keith J said: ‘. . the effect of the words ‘except such as are by this Act otherwise provided for’ in section 154(1) is to limit the circumstances in which non-parties can be responsible for costs to the circumstances set out in any provision in the Act, and the only provision in the Act which does that is section 156. I appreciate that statutory provisions should be construed if possible so as to be consistent with legal policy. That includes enabling litigants to be assured that if they are successful they will recover their legal costs, if necessary against non-parties to the litigation in appropriate circumstances if the party against whom the order for costs is made defaults. I appreciate also that statutory provisions should be construed if possible to give effect to the presumed intention of Parliament, and Parliament may be presumed to have wanted litigants not to be deterred from bringing meritorious election petitions by the fear that they will not recover their costs. But these considerations simply cannot overcome the plain words of the exception in section 154(1), to say nothing of the words ‘[s]ubject to the provisions of this or any other enactment’ in section 51(1) of the 1981 Act and the words ‘subject to the provisions of this Act’ in sections 123(2) and 157(3).’

Keith J
[2010] EWHC 285 (Admin), [2010] PTSR 937
Bailii
Representation of the People Act 1983 156
England and Wales
Citing:
BindingRegina v Cripps; Ex parte Muldoon CA 1984
The Elections Commissioner had sought, some time after his order on a petition, to clarify the order from costs.
Held: The Commissioner, and in turn Keith J, had been wrong to consider themselves not bound by Muldoon. What Mr Cripps (the . .
CitedAiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’) HL 1986
Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now . .
CitedUllah and Others, Ahmed v Pagel, Scallan, Kennedy CA 12-Dec-2002
The claimants sought to issue election petitions to challenge the results of local elections. The petitioners had complied with all the rules save that they had failed to serve the notice of presentation within the five day period. The claimants . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromThe Conservative and Unionist Party v The Election Commissioner CA 23-Nov-2010
A losing candidate at a local election alleged corrupt and illegal practices relating to the entry of non-existent people on the electoral roll and using postal votes. The Election Commissioner found this proved and the election void, and awarded . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.401860

Ullah and Others, Ahmed v Pagel, Scallan, Kennedy: CA 12 Dec 2002

The claimants sought to issue election petitions to challenge the results of local elections. The petitioners had complied with all the rules save that they had failed to serve the notice of presentation within the five day period. The claimants argued that the Civil Procedure Rules took sway over the Election Rules, and that the before the court had a discretion to waive the time limit.
Held: The Rule was expressed particularly strongly, and it was not possible to construe it in such a way as to allow a discretion. Timeous compliance was at its heart. The statute had to be looked at on its true construction to see whether any discretion existed.
The Court considered time limits for service of documents dealing with the provision of security for costs. It was submitted that Part III of the 1983 Act and the Rules made under it together comprised a discrete and purpose-built statutory scheme with the result that there was no power to extend time notwithstanding the general discretion in the Civil Procedure Rules not least because Rule 19(1) of the Election Petition Rules 1960 provided that time in relation to this provision ‘shall not be enlarged by order or otherwise’ although the rule goes on to provide that ‘save as aforesaid rules 2.8 to 2.11 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 shall apply to any period of time prescribed by these Rules’.
Held: The Court accepted the submission. Simon Brown LJ explained, ‘where the legislation intends to provide for the softening of any mandatory requirement it expressly says so’. He continued: ‘. . the legislation dictates the following hierarchy of provisions: first, Part III of the Act and the Rules made under section 182(1); next the CPR; finally, any residual ‘practice, principle or rule’ of the House of Commons (likely to concern matters such as agency and scrutiny).’

Simon Brown, May, Clarke LJJ
Times 20-Jan-2003, [2002] EWCA Civ 1793, [2003] LGR 161, [2003] 1 WLR 1820, [2003] 2 All ER 440
Bailii
Representation of the People Act 1983 163(1), Election Petition Rules 1960 (1960 No 543) 6(1) 19(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
DoubtedThe Shrewsbury Petition: Young v Figgins 1869
The petitioners had properly complied with the section so far as service on the successful candidate went; they had not, however, served the returning officer who was a deemed respondent. Counsel for the successful candidate applied inter alia on . .
CitedWilliams v Mayor of Tenby CCP 1879
The defendant had not given appropriate notices under the act and complained that his petition had been struck out: ‘It is said that there would be hardship supposing money deposited, if mere omission of notices should prevent a petition. I see no . .
CitedDevan Nair v Yong Kuan Teik PC 1967
(Malaysia) The Malaysian election rules provide in certain circumstances for service by a notice published in the Gazette but such notice was in the event out of time.
Held: The respondent’s appeal should be allowed and the petition struck . .
CitedAbsalom v Gillett QBD 1995
An application was made under rule 13 to strike out a local government election petition for non-compliance with s.136(3) and rule 6: the petitioners there had served the notice on the returning officer but had not served the successful candidates. . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Jeyeanthan; Ravichandran v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 21-May-1999
The applicant had failed to comply with the Rules in not using the form prescribed for appliying for leave to appeal against a special adjudicator’s decision to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The application, by letter, included all the relevant . .

Cited by:
CitedGough v Local Sunday Newspapers (North) Ltd and Another CA 12-Mar-2003
The appellant claimed he had been libelled, when he was called incompetent by the respondent in the way he dealt with finding an uncounted bundle of votes after an election. He appealed a finding of justification. The finding was based upon an . .
CitedThe Conservative and Unionist Party v The Election Commissioner and Others Admn 19-Feb-2010
A local election result had been set aside for fraud in the winning Conservative candidate. The Commissioner made an order for costs against his party which was now challenged for lack of jurisdiction the Commissioner being functus officio, and the . .
CitedThe Conservative and Unionist Party v The Election Commissioner CA 23-Nov-2010
A losing candidate at a local election alleged corrupt and illegal practices relating to the entry of non-existent people on the electoral roll and using postal votes. The Election Commissioner found this proved and the election void, and awarded . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.178779

Regina v Rowe, ex parte Mainwaring and Others: CA 27 May 1992

Shortly before polling day in a local government election Liberal Democrat supporters printed and distributed in key wards a leaflet that made assertions about Labour policy. It was distributed in such a way as not to alert voters as to its true source, namely the Liberal Democrats. The losing Labour candidate issued a petition challenging the election in which the Liberal Democrat candidate was elected. The petition was defended not least on the basis that the statements of fact in the leaflet were not false and so did not constitute a fraudulent device under section 115. The court held that, since the leaflet had been designed to give the appearance of being a Labour Party publication with the intention of deceiving those persons to whom it was directed and had lied about its genesis, it was a fraudulent device notwithstanding that its contents were true.
An allegation of ‘undue influence’ in an election required proof of both a fraudulent device and some real influence. The court was satisfied that it would not be desirable to have a different standard of proof in different courts on the same issue. The standard of proof, is that a person accused of corrupt practice should only be held to have committed it if the allegation is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Gazette 27-May-1992, [1992] 1 WLR 1059
Representation of the People Act 1983 115
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAehmed v Afzal and Another QBD 2-Apr-2008
The claimant candidate in a local government election challenged the election of his opponent as void since was alleged to have conducted a smear campaign.
Held: It was not for the defendant to have to prove the truth of what he said in a . .
CitedWatkins v Woolas QBD 5-Nov-2010
The petitioner said that in the course of the election campaign, the respondent Labour candidate had used illegal practices in the form of deliberately misleading and racially inflammatory material.
Held: The claim succeeded, and the election . .
CitedErlam and Others v Rahman and Another QBD 23-Apr-2015
The petitioners had alleged that the respondent, in his or his agent’s conduct of his campaign to be elected Mayor for Tower Hamlets in London in May 2014, had engaged in corrupt and illegal practices.
Held: The election was set aside for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.87653

Soyler v Turkey: ECHR 17 Sep 2013

29411/07 – Chamber Judgment, [2013] ECHR 821
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited by:
CitedChester, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 16-Oct-2013
The two applicants were serving life sentences for murder. Each sought damages for the unlawful withdrawal of their rights to vote in elections, and the failure of the British parliament to take steps to comply with the judgment.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Elections

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.515298

Anchugov And Gladkov v Russia: ECHR 4 Jul 2013

Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
Vote
Automatic and indiscriminate ban on convicted prisoners’ voting rights: violation
Facts – Both applicants were convicted of murder and other criminal offences and death, later commuted to fifteen years’ imprisonment. They were also debarred from voting, in particular, in elections to the State Duma and in presidential elections, pursuant to Article 32 – 3 of the Russian Constitution. Both applicants challenged that provision before the Russian Constitutional Court, which, however, declined to accept the complaint for examination on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction to check whether certain constitutional provisions were compatible with others.
Law – Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
(a) Election of the Russian President – The obligations imposed on the Contracting States by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 did not apply to the election of a Head of State.
Conclusion: inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae).
(b) Parliamentary elections – Article 32 – 3 of the Constitution applied automatically and indiscriminately to all convicted prisoners, regardless of the length of their sentence and irrespective of the nature or gravity of their offence or of their individual circumstances. While the Court was prepared to accept that the applicants’ disenfranchisement had pursued the aims of enhancing civic responsibility and respect for the rule of law and of ensuring the proper functioning of civil society and the democratic regime, it could not accept the Government’s argument regarding the proportionality of the restrictions. Indeed, while a large category of prisoners, namely those in detention during judicial proceedings, retained their right to vote, disenfranchisement nonetheless concerned a wide range of offenders and sentences from two months – the minimum period of imprisonment following conviction in Russia – to life and from relatively minor offences to the most serious ones. Nor was there evidence that, when deciding whether or not an immediate custodial sentence should be imposed, the Russian courts took into account the fact that such a sentence would involve disenfranchisement, or that they could make a realistic assessment of the proportionality of disenfranchisement in the light of the circumstances of each case. The Court reiterated in that connection that removal of the right to vote without any ad hoc judicial decision did not, in itself, give rise to a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The fact that the ban on prisoners’ voting rights in Russia was laid down in the Constitution – the basic law of Russia adopted following a nationwide vote – rather than in an act of parliament, was irrelevant as all acts of a member State were subject to scrutiny under the Convention, regardless of the type of measure concerned. Besides, no relevant materials had been provided to the Court showing that an attempt had been made to weigh the competing interests or to assess the proportionality of a blanket ban on convicted prisoners’ voting rights.
In such circumstances, the respondent Government had overstepped the margin of appreciation afforded to them in that field and failed to secure the applicants’ right to vote. As regards the implementation of the judgment, the Court noted the Government’s argument that the ban was imposed by a provision of the Russian Constitution which could not be amended by the Parliament and could only be revised by adopting a new Constitution, which would involve a particularly complex procedure. However, it was primarily for the Russian authorities to choose, subject to the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, the means to be used in order to bring its legislation into line with the Convention once the judgment in the instant case became final. Indeed, it was open to the Government to explore all possible ways to ensure compliance with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, including through some form of political process or by interpreting the Russian Constitution in harmony with the Convention.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.

11157/04 15162/05 – Legal Summary, [2013] ECHR 791
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights A3P1
Cited by:
Legal SummaryAnchugov And Gladkov v Russia ECHR 4-Jul-2013
. .
CitedMoohan and Another v The Lord Advocate SC 17-Dec-2014
The petitioners, convicted serving prisoners, had sought judicial review of the refusal to allow them to vote in the Scottish Referendum on Independence. The request had been refused in the Outer and Inner Houses.
Held: (Kerr, Wilson JJSC . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Elections, Prisons

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.515130

Forest Heath District Council and Others v the Electoral Commission and Others: Admn 10 Jul 2009

This case concerns the consideration currently being given to proposals to re-organise the structure of local government in Suffolk into a unitary (or single-tier) system.

Foskett J
[2009] EWHC 1682 (Admin), [2009] PTSR CS53, [2009] PTSR (CS) 53, [2009] 28 EG 85 (CS)
Bailii
England and Wales

Elections, Local Government

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.347484

Robertson, Regina (on the Application of) v Experian Ltd and Another (2): Admn 21 Jul 2003

The claimant sought a judicial review of the regulations allowing sale of the electoral role by local government bodies to registered credit reference agencies. An adjournment was refused, and the case proceeded in his absence.
Held: The earlier case had successfully challenged the earlier regulations because they allowed the sale of electoral registers for marketing purposes. The new regulations restricted sales to appropriate and registered credit reference agencies for the prevention of fraud and similar purposes. Any interference in the claimant’s was small and justified and proportionate given that wider social aim.

Maurice Kay J
[2003] EWHC 1760 (Admin), Times 11-Aug-2003
Bailii
Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (2002 No 1871) 114
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedReid, Robertson v City of Wakefield Metropolitan Council, Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 16-Nov-2001
The claimant requested the defendant authority to remove his details from the electoral register before it was sold on to third parties. They refused. He claimed that the information had been obtained from him under penalty of criminal charges, and . .
CitedMathieu Mohin and Clerfayt v Belgium ECHR 2-Mar-1987
(Plenary Court) The court described and approved the way in which an ‘institutional’ right to vote had developed into ‘subjective rights of participation – the ‘right to vote’ and the ‘right to stand for election’.’ It described the ambit of Article . .

Cited by:
CitedI-CD Publishing Ltd v The Secretary of State, The Information Commissioner (Interested Party) Admn 21-Jul-2003
The claimant sought judicial review challenging the restrictions on the sale of electoral registers to registered credit reference agencies. Following Robertson (1) the new regulations created two registers, and the claimant sought to be able to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, Information, Human Rights

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.184847

Ali v Bashir and Another: QBD 29 Jul 2013

Challenge to the election of the defendant as a councillor. Mr Ali alleged that Mr Bashir and his electoral ‘team’ had caused false names to be entered on the electoral register for the Ward. The names entered were those of either people who did not reside at the address stated or, in some cases, people who may not have existed at all.
Held: The corrupt practices that occurred in the Ward were sufficiently widespread as to justify a finding of general corruption, and the number of fraudulent votes conclusively proved to have been cast for Mr Bashir exceeded the margin by which he won the election.
Richard Mawrey QC concluded: ‘The Birmingham judgment was the first arising from mass electoral fraud resulting directly from the introduction of postal voting on demand. I had hoped that, by drawing attention to the flawed basis of the scheme and the opportunities it had created for vote-rigging on an industrial scale, public and Parliament would be alerted to the problem and that something might be done about it.
I was wrong.
In Slough, where the problem of roll-stuffing came to the fore and where the combined effect of a wholly insecure registration system and postal voting on demand had allowed the creation of phantom armies of ‘ghost voters’, once again I hoped that some action might be taken.
I was wrong again.
Nine years have passed since the fraudulent Birmingham election and five since the Slough judgment. The media and the public are fully alive to the threat that electoral fraud poses to our democracy. The politicians are in denial and, it must be said, the approach of the Electoral Commission would appear optimistic even to Dr Pangloss.
I concluded the Birmingham Judgment with the words:
‘The systems to deal with fraud are not working well. They are not working badly. The fact is that there are no systems to deal realistically with fraud and there never have been. Until there are, fraud will continue unabated.’
And the Slough Judgment with:
‘It would have been pleasant to conclude this judgment by saying that this had now all changed. But I cannot. Despite the 2006 Act, the opportunities for easy and effective electoral fraud remain substantially as they were on 4th April 2005.’
And here we are again.’

Richard Mawrey QC
[2013] EWHC 2572 (QB)
Bailii
Representation of the People Act 1983 127
England and Wales

Elections

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.516597

Erlam and Others v Rahman and Another: QBD 7 Aug 2014

Reasons for refusal of order for trial of cause under the 1983 Act to be held outside the constituency. The application was based upon allegations of electors being intimidated.
Held: The application was dismissed: ‘The evidence, in my view, falls far short of establishing the special circumstances that would warrant moving the trial from the Borough. In reaching this conclusion, I agree with the observation made by Mr Timothy Straker QC, for the Second Respondent, that the long-standing provision in primary legislation requiring local trials indicates that the concept of special circumstances is unlikely to embrace a concern about the number of attendees or the passion excited by political circumstances which creates potential for public rowdiness. ‘

Supperstone J
[2014] EWHC 2767 (QB), [2014] WLR(D) 375
Bailii, WLRD
Representation of the People Act 1983
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoErlam and Others v Rahman and Another QBD 7-Aug-2014
The claimants made allegations of improper conduct by the first respondent in the mayoral elections for Towe Hamlets. The respondent sought to have the claim struck out as lacking particularity.
Held: The application failed, though the court . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.535687

James Bagg’s Case: KBD 1572

Limitations on Disenfranchisement

The cause of disfranchising a citizen, freeman, or burgess, ought to be grounded upon an Act which is against the duty of a citizen or burgess, and against the public good of the city or borough whereof, and c. and against his oath, which he took when he was sworn a freeman of the city or borough: but words of contempt, or contra bonos mores, although against the chief officer or his brethren, are not good causes of disfranchisement, nor are endeavours, and c. to do a thing against the duty or trust of his freedom.
No freeman of any corporation can be disfranchised by the corporation, unless they have authority to do it, either by the express words of the charter, or by prescription : if they have no such authority, the party ought to be convicted by course of law before he can be removed.
A removal, without hearing the party removed, is bad.
If a party is disfranchised and a writ to restore the party, or signify the cause, and c. is awarded in KB, if a sufficient cause of removal is entitled, but which is false, the Court cannot award a writ to restore the party; but the party grieved may have a special action on the case, and upon obtaining judgment a writ of restitution shall be awarded.
The return of disfranchisement ought to be certain.

[1572] EngR 202, (1572-1616) 11 Co Rep 93, (1572) 77 ER 1271
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedShoesmith, Regina (on The Application of) v OFSTED and Others CA 27-May-2011
The claimant appealed against dismissal of her claim. She had been head of Child Services at Haringey. After the notorious violent death of Baby P, the Secretary of State called for an inquiry under the Act. He then removed her as director. She . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice, Elections

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.432168

Hirst v United Kingdom (2): ECHR 6 Oct 2005

(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a democratic society. Though the right is not absolute, any limitation had to be in pursuance of a legitimate aim. There is ‘no question that a prisoner forfeits his Convention rights merely because of his status as a person detained following conviction. Nor is there any place under the Convention system, where tolerance and broadmindedness are the acknowledged hallmarks of democratic society, for automatic disenfranchisement based purely on what might offend public opinion.’
‘Such a general, automatic and indiscriminate restriction on a vitally important Convention right must be seen as falling outside any acceptable margin of appreciation’.
‘prisoners in general continue to enjoy all the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention save for the right to liberty, where lawfully imposed detention expressly falls within the scope of article 5 of the Convention.’

L Wildhaber, P
Times 10-Oct-2005, 74025/01, (2006) 42 EHRR 41, [2005] ECHR 681
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 3, Representation of the People Act 1983 3
Human Rights
Citing:
At CommissionHirst v The United Kingdom (No. 2) ECHR 30-Mar-2004
(Commission) The prisoner alleged that the denial of his right to vote whilst in prison was disproportionate. He was serving a life sentence for manslaughter.
Held: The denial of a right to vote was in infringement of his rights and . .
CitedMathieu Mohin and Clerfayt v Belgium ECHR 2-Mar-1987
(Plenary Court) The court described and approved the way in which an ‘institutional’ right to vote had developed into ‘subjective rights of participation – the ‘right to vote’ and the ‘right to stand for election’.’ It described the ambit of Article . .
MentionedMelnychenko v Ukraine ECHR 19-Oct-2004
. .
CitedAziz v Cyprus ECHR 22-Jun-2004
Depriving a Turkish Cypriot living in the Government-controlled area of Cyprus of the right to vote was a breach of article 3. However: ‘States enjoy considerable latitude to establish rules within their constitutional order governing . . the . .
CitedPodkolzina v Latvia ECHR 9-Apr-2002
. .
Appeal fromRegina (Pearson Martinez and Hirst) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others; Hirst v Attorney-General QBD 17-Apr-2001
A law which removed a prisoner’s right to vote whilst in prison was not incompatible with his human rights. The implied right to vote under article 3 was not absolute, and states had a wide margin of appreciation as to how and to what extent the . .
CitedLabita v Italy ECHR 6-Apr-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 3 with regard to alleged ill-treatment; Violation of Art. 3 with regard to lack of effective investigation; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to . .
CitedThe United Communist Party of Turkey And Others v Turkey ECHR 30-Jan-1998
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 11; Not necessary to examine Art. 9; Not necessary to examine Art. 10; Not necessary to examine Art. 14; Not necessary to examine Art. 18; Not . .
CitedMatthews v The United Kingdom ECHR 18-Feb-1999
Member states have obligations to ensure that citizens of each state were given opportunity to vote in European elections. Britain failed to give the vote to its citizens in Gibraltar in breach of the convention right to participate in free . .
CitedKalashnikov v Russia ECHR 15-Jul-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses . .
CitedVan Der Ven v The Netherlands ECHR 4-Feb-2003
The applicant’s complaint was that the detention regime to which he was subjected in a maximum security prison, including the use of intrusive strip searches, constituted inhuman and/or degrading treatment and infringed his right to respect for his . .
CitedPloski v Poland ECHR 12-Nov-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
The claimant had been in prison on . .
CitedYankov v Bulgaria ECHR 11-Dec-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3 ; Violation of Art. 10 ; Violation of Art. 13 ; Violation of Art. 5-3 ; Violation of Art. 5-4 ; Violation of Art. 5-5 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; . .
CitedPoltoratskiy v Ukraine ECHR 29-Apr-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 3 with regard to alleged assaults ; Violation of Art. 3 with regard to lack of effective investigation ; Violation of Art. 3 with regard to . .
CitedGolder v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1975
G was a prisoner who was refused permission by the Home Secretary to consult a solicitor with a view to bringing libel proceedings against a prison officer. The court construed article 6 of ECHR, which provides that ‘in the determination of his . .
CitedSilver And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Mar-1983
There had been interference with prisoners’ letters by prison authorities. The Commission considered Standing Orders and Circular Instructions in relation to restrictions on correspondence. The rules were not available to prisoners and were . .

Cited by:
CitedWilson v Wychavon District Council and Another Admn 20-Dec-2005
The claimant complained that the law which protected an occupier of a dwelling house from a temporary stop notice did not apply to those living in caravans, and that this was discriminatory.
Held: The claim failed. ‘usually a change of use of . .
CitedSmith v KD Scott, Electoral Registration Officer SCS 24-Jan-2007
The prisoner claimed that his right to vote had not been re-instated despite a year having passed since the European Court of Human Rights had found that the withdrawal of that right for prisoners was an infringement.
Held: It was not possible . .
CitedWilson, Regina (on the Application of) v Wychavon District Council and Another CA 6-Feb-2007
The claimants said that an enforcement notice issued against them under a law which would prevent such a notice against the use of a building as a dwelling, but not against use of a caravan as a dwelling, discriminated against them as gypsies.
CitedAB, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 4-Sep-2009
The claimant was serving a sentence of imprisonment. She was a pre-operative transgender woman, but held in a male prison. She sought review of a decision to refuse transfer to a women’s prison. The Gender Recognition Panel was satisfied that the . .
CitedRegina (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another QBD 28-Oct-2009
The claimant a prisoner detained after the expiry of his lfe sentence tariff as dangerous, sought a declaration that the refusal to allow him to register as a voter in prison infringed his human rights.
Held: Such a claim had already succeeded . .
CitedBary and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 19-Mar-2010
The applicants, incarcerated at Long Lartin pending extradition or deportation, challenged a decision further restricting their movements within the prison. All were unconvicted, and all but one were suspected of terrorist crimes. The changes were . .
Grand ChamberHirst v The United Kingdom ECHR 3-Dec-2009
(Resolutions) The court noted the long delay in the respondent in implementing the judgment of the court and giving prisoners voting rights, the present consultation and adjourned until March 2011 for further information. . .
Grand Chamber decisionTovey and Others v Ministry of Justice QBD 18-Feb-2011
The claimants, serving prisoners, sought damages saying that the refusal to allow them to vote was in infringement of their human rights. The large numbers of claims had been consolidated in London. The claimant sought to withdraw his claim.
CitedChester, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 16-Oct-2013
The two applicants were serving life sentences for murder. Each sought damages for the unlawful withdrawal of their rights to vote in elections, and the failure of the British parliament to take steps to comply with the judgment.
Held: The . .
CitedNicklinson and Another, Regina (on The Application of) SC 25-Jun-2014
Criminality of Assisting Suicide not Infringing
The court was asked: ‘whether the present state of the law of England and Wales relating to assisting suicide infringes the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether the code published by the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to . .
CitedT and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another SC 18-Jun-2014
T and JB, asserted that the reference in certificates issued by the state to cautions given to them violated their right to respect for their private life under article 8 of the Convention. T further claims that the obligation cast upon him to . .
CitedGaughran v Chief Constable of The Police Service of Northern Ireland (Northern Ireland) SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked as to to the right of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to retain personal information and data lawfully obtained from the appellant following his arrest for the offence of driving with excess alcohol.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedMcCann v The State Hospitals Board for Scotland SC 11-Apr-2017
A challenge by request for judicial review to the legality of the comprehensive ban on smoking at the State Hospital at Carstairs which the State Hospitals Board adopted. The appellant, a detained patient, did not challenge the ban on smoking . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Elections

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.231041

Afzal, Regina (on the Application of) v Election Court and others: CA 26 May 2005

The appellant sought judicial review of the decision of the election court as to his conduct at an election to certify him guilty of corrupt and illegal practices.
Held: The allegations against the appellants were so serious that though the proceedings were in their nature civil, evidence to a criminal standard was required. That was the view taken by the commissioner and was correct. However, having reviewed the conduct of the case, the commissioner had failed to allow to the appellant sufficient opportunity to answer the allegations made against him. Whilst this appeal must be allowed, the court expressed its admiration for the clarity of the commissioner’s judgment and said that this decision should not be taken to undermine the findings against others which findings had not been challenged.

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Brooke LJ, Dyson LJ
[2005] EWCA Civ 647, Times 07-Jun-2005
Bailii
Representation of the People Act 1983 127
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMahon v Air New Zealand Ltd PC 1984
There had been an inquiry into a tragic air crash. The appellants said that though identified by the Royal Commissioner (a High Court judge) as being parties to ‘an orchestrated litany of lies’, they had not been given a proper opportunity to answer . .
CitedHolland v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Devolution) PC 11-May-2005
The defendant appealed his convictions for robbery. He had been subject to a dock identification, and he complained that the prosecution had failed in its duties of disclosure.
Held: The combination of several failings meant that the defendant . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.225282

Foster v McNicol and Another: QBD 28 Jul 2016

Incumbent Labour leader did not need nominations

The claimant challenged a decision of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party to allow its present Leader to stand in the leadership election challenging his position without the need for him to submit first the otherwise standard nominations from a certain percentage of the party.
Held: The challenge failed. Properly read, the rules required nominations from a challenger only. As the incumbent, he was not a challenger, and was not to be required to go through the procedure requiring nomination.
Foskett J summarised the effect of the rules: ‘(a) where there is a vacancy for Leader, anyone who wishes to be considered for the position would require nominations from 15% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and EPLP in order to be a candidate in the election;
(b) where there is no vacancy (because the Leader is still in place), anyone who wishes to challenge the Leader’s right to continue as Leader would need nominations from 20% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and EPLP in order to mount such a challenge;
(c) the Leader would not in that situation (where there is no vacancy) be someone who was a ‘challenger’ for the leadership and, accordingly, would require no nominations in order to compete in the ballot to retain his/her position as Leader.’
It was argued that in attempting to oust the jurisdiction of the court, that part f the rules were void.
Held: Since the question was not directly in issue, a proper resolution must await a case raising it more directly: ‘ because of the court’s reluctance to be drawn into any kind of political debate, I do accept unreservedly that where a decision, certainly about the application of any rule that is ambiguous, requires consideration of background material beyond the precise words used in the rule that has significant political connotations, the NEC may well be better placed than the court to consider those implications and to decide accordingly. In this case, had it been necessary to consider the competing contentions about what were said by each side to be the ‘absurd’ and ‘obviously unintended’ consequences arising from the acceptance of the other side’s view of the meaning of Clause II.B.2(ii), the court would have found itself in the midst of what Mr Henderson correctly characterised as ‘intensely political’ considerations. Because the problem has not arisen, it is not necessary to speculate on what might have been the result, but I highlight the issue because it brings clearly and vividly into focus the importance of recognising the vital dividing line between the world of politics and the world of the law.’

Foskett J
[2016] EWHC 1966 (QB)
Bailii, Judiciary Summmary, Judiciary
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedChoudry and others v Triesman ChD 31-Mar-2003
The applicants sought an order requiring the respondent general secretary of the Labour Party to allow them to stand as candidates for the party in the forthcoming local elections. After allegations about the way in which selection had been carried . .
CitedInvestors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society HL 19-Jun-1997
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity
The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside.
Held: Investors having once . .
CitedBank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Ali, Khan and others (No 1); BCCI v Ali HL 1-Mar-2001
Cere Needed Releasing Future Claims
A compromise agreement which appeared to claim to settle all outstanding claims between the employee and employer, did not prevent the employee later claiming for stigma losses where, at the time of the agreement, the circumstances which might lead . .
CitedArnold v Britton and Others SC 10-Jun-2015
Absurdity did not defeat a clear clause
A standard lease of plots on a caravan park, contained a provision which appeared to increase the rent by 10% in each year. The tenants argued that such a substantial increase could not have been intended.
Held: The tenants’ appeal failed . .
CitedLee v Showmens Guild of Great Britain CA 1952
Decisions of inferior tribunals, including arbitrators, were reviewable on the basis of general error of law on record for which certiorari might issue. A decision may be reviewable where there was no evidence supporting particular conclusions.
CitedBaker v Jones 1954
There was a dispute within an unincorporated weightlifting association about an alleged misuse of its funds.
Held: Words in an agreement are void to the extent that they seek to oust the jurisdiction of the court.
Lynsey J said: ‘The . .
CitedLeigh v National Union of Railwaymen 1970
. .
CitedJacques v Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers 1986
The rules of a Trades Union are not to be construed as if they were a statute but are ‘to be given a reasonable interpretation which accords with their intended meaning; bearing in mind their authorship, their purpose and the readership to which . .
CitedBritish Equity v Goring CA 1997
Roskill LJ considered the ‘inelegant draftsmanship’ of a trades union’s rules, saying: ‘Some reliance was placed upon the differing and somewhat indiscriminate use of words such as ‘motion,’ ‘resolution’ and ‘questions’ in the various rules as . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Contract, Elections

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.567799

The Wakefield Case XVII: 1874

The court considered who was an agent in election law: ‘By election law the doctrine of agency is carried further than in other cases. By the ordinary law of agency a person is not responsible for the acts of those whom he has not authorised, or even for acts done beyond the scope of the agent’s authority . . but he is not responsible for the acts which his alleged agents choose to do on their own behalf. But if that construction of agency were put upon acts done at an election, it would be almost impossible to prevent corruption. Accordingly, a wider scope has been given to the term ‘agency’ in election matters, and a candidate is responsible generally, you may say, for the deeds of those who to his knowledge for the purpose of promoting his election canvass and do such other acts as may tend to promote his election, provided the candidate or his authorised agents have reasonable knowledge that those persons are so acting with that object.’

(1874) 2 O’M and H 100
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAehmed v Afzal and Another QBD 2-Apr-2008
The claimant candidate in a local government election challenged the election of his opponent as void since was alleged to have conducted a smear campaign.
Held: It was not for the defendant to have to prove the truth of what he said in a . .
CitedErlam and Others v Rahman and Another QBD 23-Apr-2015
The petitioners had alleged that the respondent, in his or his agent’s conduct of his campaign to be elected Mayor for Tower Hamlets in London in May 2014, had engaged in corrupt and illegal practices.
Held: The election was set aside for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.270363

Aehmed v Afzal and Another: QBD 2 Apr 2008

The claimant candidate in a local government election challenged the election of his opponent as void since was alleged to have conducted a smear campaign.
Held: It was not for the defendant to have to prove the truth of what he said in a campaign leaflet; the comparison with criminal libel was not a good one. The words at issue: ‘must be interpreted bearing in mind that they are used to create a criminal offence. They, therefore, should be interpreted narrowly. Secondly, they have to be interpreted having regard to the fact that they are concerned with speech, which is subject to the European Convention on Human Rights. Third, it ought to be remembered that interpreting them broadly might be thought an inhibition on speech at elections. Fourth, they, nonetheless, have to be given meaning as Parliament plainly considered some speech to fall within the limited inhibition of Section 106. Moreover article 10(2) of the Convention expressly enables free speech to be subject to restrictions or penalties which are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society for the protection of reputations or rights of others.’

Commissioner Straker QC
[2008] EWHC B5 (QB)
Bailii
Representation of the People Act 1983 106, European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedSunderland Borough Case 1896
A mere argumentative statement as to the conduct of a public man, even though in respect of his private life, is not always, and in many cases certainly not, a breach of election law. . .
CitedCockermouth Division of the County of Cumberland 1901
In construing the validity of statements made during an election, the court distinguished between false statements of fact, affecting personal character or conduct, and false statements of fact, dealing with the political position, reputation or . .
CitedRegina v Rowe, ex parte Mainwaring and Others CA 27-May-1992
An allegation of ‘undue influence’ in an election required proof of both a fraudulent device and some real influence. The court was satisfied that it would not be desirable to have a different standard of proof in different courts on the same issue. . .
CitedThe Wakefield Case XVII 1874
The court considered who was an agent in election law: ‘By election law the doctrine of agency is carried further than in other cases. By the ordinary law of agency a person is not responsible for the acts of those whom he has not authorised, or . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, Human Rights

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.270291

Watkins v Woolas: QBD 5 Nov 2010

The petitioner said that in the course of the election campaign, the respondent Labour candidate had used illegal practices in the form of deliberately misleading and racially inflammatory material.
Held: The claim succeeded, and the election result was set aside. The defendant had made several untrue statements relating to the character of the petitioner, fully aware that he had no reasonable ground for thinking them true.
The earlier case law still applied save as required to reflect the Human Rights Act. However: ‘section 106 is directed at protecting the right of the electorate to express its choice at an election, which right is protected by Article 3 of the First Protocol. Section 106 seeks to ensure that the electorate expresses its opinion in the choice of the legislature on the basis of facts and competing policy arguments rather than on false assertions as to the personal character or conduct of the candidates. That can properly be described as a pressing social need. Section 106 is also directed at protecting the reputation of candidates at an election which is protected by article 8 of the ECHR. In truth the two interests, that of the electorate and of other candidates, overlap or converge. False statements which relate to a candidate’s personal character or conduct distort, or may distort, the electorate’s choice and hence the democratic process.’ The provisions of the Act were proportionate.
The court made use of defamation law to identify the difference between comment and assertions of fact.

Teare J, Griffith Williams J
[2010] EWHC 2702 (QB)
Bailii
Representation of the People Act 1983 106 120, European Convention on Human Rights 10
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedThe North Division of the County of Louth 1911
Madden J explained the Act: ‘The Act of 1895 afforded a further protection to constituencies and to candidates. The mischief against which it was directed was an abuse of the right of free discussion by the dissemination among a constituency of . .
CitedFairbairn v Scottish National Party 1979
Lord Ross held that a statement made during the course of an election campaign, which suggested that the pursuer (a member of parliament) did not collect his constituency mail from the House of Commons Post office was an attack on his character as a . .
CitedBowman v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Feb-1998
UK Electoral law went too far to restrict freedom of speech when limiting the amounts spent by third parties discussing candidates. The legislative provision in question was held to operate, for all practical purposes, as a total barrier to Mrs . .
CitedRegina v Rowe, ex parte Mainwaring and Others CA 27-May-1992
An allegation of ‘undue influence’ in an election required proof of both a fraudulent device and some real influence. The court was satisfied that it would not be desirable to have a different standard of proof in different courts on the same issue. . .
CitedSheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
CitedRegina v Johnstone HL 22-May-2003
The defendant was convicted under the 1994 Act of producing counterfeit CDs. He argued that the affixing of the name of the artist to the CD was not a trade mark use, and that the prosecution had first to establish a civil offence before his act . .
CitedRegina v Shayler HL 21-Mar-2002
The defendant had been a member of the security services. On becoming employed, and upon leaving, he had agreed to keep secret those matters disclosed to him. He had broken those agreements and was being prosecuted. He sought a decision that the . .
CitedHayward v Thompson CA 1981
A later publication by the same defendant can be used to identify the plaintiff in an earlier publication. If the defendant did intend to refer to the plaintiff, it may be enough if the recipient understood it as referring to the plaintiff . .
CitedSkuse v Granada Television CA 30-Mar-1993
The claimant complained that the defendant had said in a television programme that he had failed to act properly when presenting his expert forensic evidence in court in the trial of the Birmingham Six.
Held: The court should give to the . .
CitedBonnick v Morris, The Gleaner Company Ltd and Allen PC 17-Jun-2002
(Jamaica) The appellant sought damages from the respondent journalists in defamation. They had claimed qualified privilege. The words alleged to be defamatory were ambiguous.
Held: The publishers were protected by Reynolds privilege. The court . .
CitedBritish Chiropractic Association v Dr Simon Singh CA 1-Apr-2010
The defendant appealed against a ruling that the words in an article – ‘This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments’ – were statements of fact, and were not comment.
Cited by:
See AlsoWoolas, Regina (on The Application of) v The Speaker of The House of Commons Admn 3-Dec-2010
The claimant sought to challenge the decision of an Election court setting aside his election as a Member of Parliament. The court was asked to decide whether it had jurisdiction to review a determination by the Election Court of a point of law, and . .
CitedErlam and Others v Rahman and Another QBD 23-Apr-2015
The petitioners had alleged that the respondent, in his or his agent’s conduct of his campaign to be elected Mayor for Tower Hamlets in London in May 2014, had engaged in corrupt and illegal practices.
Held: The election was set aside for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.425808

Morgan v Simpson: CA 1974

Voting papers that were invalid as a result of minor administrative errors by officials (and not the voters). Counting the invalid votes would have affected the election outcome.
Held: The election was declared void. Section 37(1) was not available to cure the defects, but rather it was to be used to ask whether the defects had affected the outcome.
Lord Denning MR commented on parliamentary elections conducted more than a century earlier by poll whereby a voter’s name, qualification and vote were recorded in a book open for public inspection, saying: ‘Such was the method of election at common law. It was open. Not by secret ballot. Being open, it was disgraced by abuses of every kind, especially at parliamentary elections. Bribery, corruption, treating, personation, were rampant.’ and ‘An election petition is a serious – and expensive – matter and is not lightly to be set aside.’
Stephenson LJ said: ‘For an election to be conducted substantially in accordance with that law there must be a real election by ballot and no such substantial departure from the procedure laid down by Parliament as to make the ordinary man condemn the election as a sham or a travesty of an election by ballot.’

Lord Denning MR, Stephenson LJ
[1975] 1 QB 151, [1974] 3 All ER 722, [1974] 3 WLR 517
Representation of the People Act 1949 37(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedEdgell v Glover, Garnett (Returning Officer) QBD 4-Nov-2003
The constituency had adopted an all postal ballot, resulting in a counted majority of one. One ballot paper’s confirmation of identity had not been signed.
Held: The function of the court, exercising its jurisdiction under section 48(1), is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.187488

Coughlan, Regina (on The Application of) v The Minister for The Cabinet Office: Admn 20 Mar 2019

Voter Identification Pilot Scheme within Act

The Minister had brought in a pilot testing scheme for local elections. It would require intending voters to provide evidence of identity. The claimant said that the scheme did not fall within the range of what was allowed under the 2003 Act.
Held: The claim failed. The phrase ‘how voting at elections is to take place’ in section 10(2)(a) of the 2000 Act, were quite broad enough on their natural meaning to include the element of the procedure to require demonstration of an entitlement to vote, including by proving identity, as part of a voting process.

Supperstone J
[2019] EWHC 641 (Admin), [2019] WLR(D) 173
Bailii, WLRD
Representation of the People Act 2000 10(2)(a)
England and Wales

Local Government, Elections

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.635160