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

Shindler and Another v Chancellor of The Duchy of Lancaster and Another: Admn 28 Apr 2016

The claimants challenged the franchise for the forthcoming European Referendum which excluded them rom voting on the basis that they were not resident within the UK and had neot been registered to vote here for more than five years.
Held: ‘1) In principle, section 2 of the 2015 Act is capable of engaging EU law
(2) Section 2 of the 2015 Act is not a restriction on the rights of free movement enjoyed by the claimants as EU citizens.
(3) In any event, if it were such a restriction, section 2 of the 2015 Act would be objectively justified.
For these reasons we grant the claimants leave to apply for judicial review but refuse the application.’

Lloyd Jones LJ, Blake J
[2016] EWHC 957 (Admin), [2016] HRLR 12
Bailii
European Union Referendum Act 2015 2
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromShindler and Another v Chancellor of The Duchy of Lancaster and Another CA 20-May-2016
UK free to disenfranchise citizens resident abroad
The claimants appealed against rejection of their challenges to the 2015 Act. As British citizens who had lived abroad for more than fifteen years, they were not to be allowed to vote.
Held: The claim failed. The Act was not in breach of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, Constitutional, European

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.563225

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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights, Elections, European

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.516496

Electoral 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. The Commission sought to forfeit an amount equal to the donations. The Commission argued that the judge was wrong to find a presumption against forfeiture.
Held: The court must view the discretion to forfeit against the legislative background. Here, UKIP had altered its procedures to make it more difficult to carry out the statutory checks. The penalties under the Act were avoidable, and the size and financial standing of the party were not proper considerations. The discretion under 58(2) is a narrow one, and there were no appropriate circumstances here to allow its use. The matter was remitted to the magistrates court for a decision.

Waller LJ, Goldring LJ, Sir Paul Kennedy
[2009] EWCA Civ 1078, Times 28-Oct-2009, [2010] 2 WLR 873, [2010] QB 298, [2010] 1 All ER 1167
Bailii
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 58(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPadfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food HL 14-Feb-1968
Exercise of Ministerial Discretion
The Minister had power to direct an investigation in respect of any complaint as to the operation of any marketing scheme for agricultural produce. Milk producers complained about the price paid by the milk marketing board for their milk when . .
Appeal fromThe 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 . .
CitedRegina v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, ex parte Chetnik Developments Limited HL 1988
The House was asked whether a rating authority could refuse to repay rates which had been paid by mistake.
Held: ‘Parliament must have intended the rating authorities to act in the same high principled way expected by the court of its own . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromThe 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: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.376168

Firth And Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 12 Aug 2014

firth_ukECHR1408

The claimants were prisoners who complained that as prisoners they had been automatically not allowed to vote in European Elections.
Held: The complaints were admissible, and the legislation was incompatible with the prisoners’ human rights, but damages other than for non-pecuniary losses were rejected.

Ineta Ziemele, P
47784/09 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 874
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights A3P1

Human Rights, Prisons, Elections, News

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.535702

Moohan 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 dissenting) The ban did not infringe the prisoners’ human rights. The referendum was not an election to a democratically elected legislature.
Courts should not seek to develop the common law in a way designed to add to or replace statutory rights.
Baroness Hale said: ‘The courts of the United Kingdom are not bound by the judgments of the Strasbourg Court in interpreting the ECHR. In section 2 of HRA 1998 the courts are obliged only to ‘take into account’ that jurisprudence. There is room for disagreement and dialogue between the domestic courts and the Strasbourg Court on the application of provisions of the ECHR to circumstances in the UK. Nonetheless, it is consistent with the intention of Parliament in enacting HRA 1998 that our courts should follow ‘a clear and constant line of decisions’ of the Strasbourg Court, ‘whose effect is not inconsistent with some fundamental substantive or procedural aspect of our law, and whose reasoning does not appear to overlook or misunderstand some argument or point of principle”

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge
[2014] UKSC 67, [2014] WLR(D) 544, UKSC 2014/0183, [2015] 1 AC 901, [2015] 2 All ER 361, 2015 SLT 2, 2015 GWD 1-1, [2015] 2 WLR 141
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC Summary, SC
Representation of the People Act 1983 3(1), Human Rights Act 1998, Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Act 2013 82 3
Scotland
Citing:
At Outer HouseMoohan, Re Judicial Review SCS 19-Dec-2013
Outer House – the petitioners, each convicted serving prisoners, complained of the blanket ban on them voting in the referendum on Scottish Independence.
Held: The petition was refused. The Act was not a breach of the petitioners’ rights under . .
Appeal fromMoohan and Black Gillon v The Lord Advocate SCS 2-Jul-2014
Inner House – Challenge to denial to prisoners of right to vote in forthcoming independence referendum. They said it was contrary to Human Rights and European Law.
Held: The House refused a reclaiming motion by the petitioners. . .
CitedX 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 . .
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 . .
CitedZ v Latvia ECHR 24-Jan-2008
The applicant alleged that his detention on remand was excessively long, that the proceedings against him were unreasonably long and that he was denied a fair trial since his requests to examine witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and . .
CitedNiedzwiedz 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) . .
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
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 . .
CitedLiberal Party v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Dec-1980
Article 25 of the Convention
a) A political party, as a gathering of people with a common interest, can be considered as a non governmental organisation or a group of individuals ;
b) Can a political party, as such, be considered as a . .
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 . .
CitedZdanoka v Latvia ECHR 16-Mar-2006
(Grand Chamber) The applicant alleged that her disqualification from standing for election to the Latvian Parliament and to municipal elections infringed her rights as guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and Articles 10 and . .
CitedIn re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
CitedRottmann v Freistaat Bayern ECJ 2-Mar-2010
ECJ Citizenship of the Union Article 17 EC – Nationality of one Member State acquired by birth – Nationality of another Member State acquired by naturalisation – Loss of original nationality by reason of that . .
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. . .
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 . . .
CitedRabone and Another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation SC 8-Feb-2012
The claimant’s daughter had committed suicide whilst on home leave from a hospital where she had stayed as a voluntary patient with depression. Her admission had followed a suicide attempt. The hospital admitted negligence but denied that it owed . .
CitedSitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos v Greece ECHR 15-Mar-2012
Grand Chamber . .
CitedShindler v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-May-2013
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
Vote
Restriction on voting rights of non-resident citizens: no violation
Facts – The applicant, a British national, left the United Kingdom in 1982 following his retirement and moved to Italy with his . .

Cited by:
CitedCommissioner of Police of The Metropolis v DSD and Another SC 21-Feb-2018
Two claimants had each been sexually assaulted by a later notorious, multiple rapist. Each had made complaints to police about their assaults but said that no effective steps had been taken to investigate the serious complaints.
Held: The . .
CitedCherry, Reclaiming Motion By Joanna Cherry QC MP and Others v The Advocate General SCS 11-Sep-2019
(First Division, Inner House) The reclaimer challenged dismissal of her claim for review of the recent decision for the prorogation of the Parliament at Westminster.
Held: Reclaim was granted. The absence of reasons allowed the court to infer . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, Prisons, Human Rights, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.540221

Woolas, 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 if so whether that court had correctly decided as to the test of whether a statement had been made ‘in relation to the personal character or conduct’ of his opponent.
Held: The request fro review was refused. The court set out the history of its involvement in election disputes, recording that when, in 1868, it was proposed that election disputes should be referred to the courts, the then Lord Chief Justice, Sir Alexander Cockburn Bt (ironically the country’s leading expert in electoral law), wrote a stern letter of protest to the Lord Chancellor and earned himself an unflattering cartoon in Punch for his pains. All to no avail. If, as Parliament believed, politicians could not be trusted to resolve election disputes fairly, then who was left but the judiciary?

Thomas LJ, Tugendhat J, Nicola Davies J
[2010] EWHC 3169 (Admin), [2011] 2 WLR 1362, [2012] QB 1
Bailii
Representation of the People Act 1983 106(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoWatkins 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 . .

Cited by:
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, Constitutional

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.427027

Sunderland 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.

(1896) 5 O’MandH 53
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

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.270361

Shindler and Another v Chancellor of The Duchy of Lancaster and Another: CA 20 May 2016

UK free to disenfranchise citizens resident abroad

The claimants appealed against rejection of their challenges to the 2015 Act. As British citizens who had lived abroad for more than fifteen years, they were not to be allowed to vote.
Held: The claim failed. The Act was not in breach of European law supporting freedom of movement. The EU had recognised that the decision of a Member State to withdraw is an exercise of national sovereignty which is governed by its own constitutional arrangements. The Act fell outside the scope of European law. Nor did any right at common law override the precedence given to an Act of Parliament.
Lord Dyson MR said that ‘Parliament agreed to join the EU by exercising sovereign powers untrammelled by EU law and I think it would expect to be able to leave the EU in the exercise of the same untrammelled sovereign power’.

Lord Dyson MR, Elias, King LJJ
C1/2016/1796, [2016] EWCA Civ 469, [2016] WLR(D) 273, [2016] HRLR 14, [2016] 3 WLR 1196, [2017] QB 226, [2016] 3 CMLR 23
Bailii, Judiciary, JGU Summary, WLRD
EU Referendum Act 2105 2
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromShindler and Another v Chancellor of The Duchy of Lancaster and Another Admn 28-Apr-2016
The claimants challenged the franchise for the forthcoming European Referendum which excluded them rom voting on the basis that they were not resident within the UK and had neot been registered to vote here for more than five years.
Held: ‘1) . .

Cited by:
CitedMcCord, Re Judicial Review QBNI 28-Oct-2016
The claimant made application for judicial review of the stated intention of the Government of the UK to issue an article 50 notice to leave the EU, by means of the use of the royal Prerogative. They said that any use of the royal prerogative had . .
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.

Elections, European, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.564452

Tovey 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.
Held: The claims failed and were struck out: ‘there are no reasonable grounds in domestic law for bringing a claim for damages or a declaration for being disenfranchised whilst a prisoner. Statute precludes it. Case-law is against it. European authority is against the payment of compensatory damages in respect of it. A claim for a declaration is not hopeless, but difficult. The fact the Secretary of State (or the State) has not acted to remedy the contravention identified in Hirst and Greens does not itself give rise to a claim for damages, because the express wording of Statute prevents it.’
As a representative claim the claimant had no simple right to withdraw, but legal aid had been refused, and not to allow him might leave the fate of other applicants compromised. An adjournment was inappropriate, and the court heard the defendant’s application for a strike out.
A reading down of the Act to make it comply with the ECHR rulings would require the statute wording to be turned on its head, and ‘ to interpret the statute in this way would be a step too far’.
as to costs, each of the remaining claimants should pay an equal share of the defendant’s costs.

Langstaff J
[2011] EWHC 271 (QB), [2011] HRLR 17
Bailii
Representation of the People Act 1983 3, Human Rights Act 1998 6 7
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Secretary of State ex parte Toner and Walsh NIQB 1997
The claimants sought damages saying that the respondent had infringed their human rights in removing their right to vote in an election whilst serving prison sentences. . .
CitedChester 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 . .
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 . .
Grand Chamber decisionHirst 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 . .
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 . .
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: . .
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: . .
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. . .
CitedDavies v Eli Lilly and Co (Opren Litigation) CA 1987
The powers in the section together with the power to make orders for costs under Order 62 of the Rules of the Supreme Court included the power to make a pre-emptive order for costs.
Lord Donaldson MR said: ‘In these circumstances the judge . .
CitedActavis UK Ltd v Eli Lilly and Co Ltd CA 2010
A party who discontinues, having allied himself to a claim brought by another, may, nonetheless, be called on to pay the entirety of the costs together with that other where that other is unsuccessful . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Elections

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.429741

Regina v Khan and Others: CACD 7 Oct 2011

The appellants challenged their convictions for the fraudulent use of falsely completed applications to vote by post. They said that the prosecutors had failed properly to disclose other postal applications also suspected and collected by the returning officer who, under the Code of Practice was a ‘delegated investigator’ with associated duties.
Held: Appeals were variously allowed and rejected. The documents were collected before the Code now relied upon came into effect, and ‘the enquiry carried out by the police was neither a joint, nor a delegated, investigation. It was in the nature of an examination by a complainant of suspicious documents subsequently handed to the police. We would draw a comparison between the inquiry we have described and the production to the police of other suspicious documents, for example, cheques drawn on a bank. It would not, in such circumstances, be suggested that the bank was a joint or delegated investigator although it provided the material which was the subject of investigation.’
The existence of the documents seized was a matter of public knowledge and was known to the defendants. Appeals on these grounds were rejected.
The judge had however erred in failing to remind the jury of necessary cautions about the ESDA evidence being used. Nor was satisfactory evidence brought to establish that other members of the relevant household might not have completed the false forms.

Pitchford LJ, Wilkie, Holroyde JJ
[2011] EWCA Crim 2240
Bailii
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) Order 2005 (SI 2005) No 985, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 26
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v JAK CACD 1992
The defendant was accused of rape and other indecent assaults going back some 20 years. He appealed against a refusal of a stay on the grounds of abuse of process given the very long delay before any complaint was made.
Held: The application . .
CitedRegina v Alibhai and Others CACD 30-Mar-2004
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute counterfeit Microsoft products. They said that inadequate disclosure had been provided by Microsoft. The principal witness was a participating informant . .
CitedRegina v Telford Justices, ex parte Badhan CACD 1991
The defendant was accused of a sexual offence alleged to have been committed some 15 years earlier. He asked the magistrates to dismiss the charge as an abuse of process, and now appealed their refusal.
Held: The onus was on the accused to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Elections, Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.445045

The 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 forfeiture, where it said that an order ‘may’ be made, and whether an order may be made for a lesser sum than that received.
Held: The appeal succeeded (Lords Rodger, Walker and Brown dissenting).
Lord Phillips said that the forfeiture of the entire sum donated was not universally necessary as a sanction: ‘Parliament plainly made the power to forfeit discretionary with the intention that the magistrates’ court should discriminate between cases where forfeiture was warranted and cases where it was not . . Parliament intended the court to consider whether forfeiture was a proportionate response to the facts of the particular case. This involves considering whether forfeiture is necessary to achieve either the primary or the secondary object of the Act. The most relevant consideration is whether forfeiture is necessary to prevent the retention of a foreign donation in the individual case. Proof of acceptance of a donation from an impermissible source should raise a presumption that the donation is foreign. If the party cannot rebut that presumption, forfeiture should follow. If the party succeeds in demonstrating that the donor was entitled to be placed on an electoral register, forfeiture should then depend on whether it is an appropriate sanction for such shortcomings as led to the acceptance of the donation. This will require consideration of culpability, the size of the donation and the effect that forfeiture will be likely to have on the political party. Partial forfeiture, if permitted (as to which see below), will enable the court to impose an appropriate sanction where total forfeiture would be disproportionate.’
The Court distinguished between donors who had not in fact registered and those who were not entitled to be registered to vote, and ‘If it is shown that the donor was in a position to qualify as a permissible donor by registering on an electoral register, the initial presumption in favour of forfeiture will have been rebutted.’ Nor was the power an all or nothing one: ‘the better interpretation is to treat the power to order forfeiture of an amount equal to the value of an impermissible donation as implicitly including the power to order forfeiture of a lesser sum. Such an interpretation is desirable to cope with the situation where the magistrates’ court is persuaded that the donor is not foreign. In those circumstances, total forfeiture of the donation may be disproportionate.’
Lord Rodger (dissenting) would dismiss the appeal saying: ‘Nothing could be clearer than the language used by Parliament and nothing could be clearer than the intention behind the language: political parties were not to accept donations from any individual who was not registered in an electoral register. In particular, parties were not to accept donations from individuals who were entitled to be registered, but who were not on the register. That situation would be adequately catered for by the simple expedient of the individual concerned getting himself registered: the party could then accept a donation from him.’ The use of the test of whether a donor was or was not registered simplified administration of the provisions greatly. There was only a narrow discretion not to award forfeiture and of the full sum.

Lord Phillips, President , Lord Rodger, Lord Walker, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke
[2010] UKSC 40, [2010] 3 WLR 705, UKSC 2009/0205, [2011] 1 AC 496
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 58
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPadfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food HL 14-Feb-1968
Exercise of Ministerial Discretion
The Minister had power to direct an investigation in respect of any complaint as to the operation of any marketing scheme for agricultural produce. Milk producers complained about the price paid by the milk marketing board for their milk when . .
CitedRegina v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, ex parte Chetnik Developments Limited HL 1988
The House was asked whether a rating authority could refuse to repay rates which had been paid by mistake.
Held: ‘Parliament must have intended the rating authorities to act in the same high principled way expected by the court of its own . .
At First InstanceThe 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 . .
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. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.425184

Regina v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Pro-life Alliance: HL 15 May 2003

The Alliance was a political party seeking to air its party election broadcast. The appellant broadcasters declined to broadcast the film on the grounds that it was offensive, being a graphical discussion of the processes of abortion.
Held: Freedom of political speech is a freedom of the very highest importance. Article 10 requires that access to an important public medium of communication should not be refused on discriminatory, arbitrary or unreasonable grounds. Prior restraint is seriously inimical to freedom of political communication. The broadcasters were subject to rules requiring them equally to maintaining standards of decency. The two questions were: whether party broadcasts are restricted as to offensive material, and if so whether, the right standard had been applied. The Court of Appeal failed to distinguish the two questions. The court could not rewrite the standard of decency applied by the statute, and the appeal succeeded. (Lord Scott of Foscote dissenting) The rights of others’ within the meaning of Article 10(2) ‘need not be to limited to strictly legal rights the breach of which might sound in damages and is well capable of extending to a recognition of the sense of outrage that might be felt by ordinary members of the public who in the privacy of their homes had switched on the television set and been confronted by gratuitously offensive material.’
Lord Hoffmann said that the power of broadcasting justified restrictions for taste and decency. Article 10 was not engaged: ‘In the present case, that primary right [under Article 10] was not engaged. There was nothing that the Alliance was prevented from doing, It enjoyed the same free speech as every other citizen. By virtue of its entitlement to a [Party Election Broadcast] it had more access to the homes of its fellow citizens that other single-issue groups which could not afford to register as a political party and put up six deposits.
There is no human right to use a television channel . .’
However, Article 10 might be in play if access to broadcasts was unfairly denied: ‘The fact that no one has a right to broadcast on television does not mean that article 10 has no application to such broadcasts. But the nature of the right in each case is different. Instead of being a right not to be prevented from expressing one’s opinions, it becomes a right to fair consideration for being afforded the opportunity to do so; a right not to have one’s access to public media denied on discriminatory, arbitrary or unreasonable grounds.’

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Millett, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
[2003] 2 WLR 1403, Times 16-May-2003, [2003] UKHL 23, Gazette 03-Jul-2003, [2004] 1 AC 185, [2003] UKHRR 758, [2003] HRLR 26, [2003] ACD 65, [2003] EMLR 23, [2003] 2 All ER 977, [2003] EMLR 23
House of Lords, Bailii
Broadcasting Act 1990 6(1)(a), European Convention on Human Rights 10(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina (Quintavalle, Prolife Alliance) v British Broadcasting Corporation CA 14-Mar-2002
The applicant had stood for election, and since there were a sufficient number of candidates for the ProLife Alliance, they sought a party political broadcast. The material they produced was rejected by the respondent and others, as not complying . .
CitedBenjamin, Vanderpool and Gumbs v The Minister of Information and Broadcasting and The Attorney General for Anguilla PC 14-Feb-2001
PC (Anguilla) A first non-religious radio station had been formed, but came to include much criticism of the government. One programme was suspended by the government. The programme makers complained that this . .
CitedVgt Verein Gegen Tierfabriken v Switzerland ECHR 28-Jun-2001
The applicant association dedicated itself to the protection of animals, from animal experiments and industrial animal production. In reaction to television commercials broadcast by the meat industry it prepared a TV advertisement contrasting the . .
CitedAssociated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Defence Ex Parte Smith; Regina v Same Ex Parte Grady Etc CA 6-Nov-1995
A ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces was not irrational, and the challenge to the ban failed. The greater the policy content of a decision, and the more remote the subject matter of a decision from ordinary judicial experience, the more . .
CitedSmith and Grady v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Sep-1999
The United Kingdom’s ban on homosexuals within the armed forces was a breach of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life. Applicants had also been denied an effective remedy under the Convention. The investigations into . .
CitedDe Freitas v The Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing and others PC 30-Jun-1998
(Antigua and Barbuda) The applicant was employed as a civil servant. He joined a demonstration alleging corruption in a minister. It was alleged he had infringed his duties as a civil servant, and he replied that the constitution allowed him to . .
CitedRegina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
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 . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v International Transport Roth Gmbh and others CA 22-Feb-2002
The Appellant had introduced a system of fining lorry drivers returning to the UK with illegal immigrants hiding away in their trucks. The rules had been found to be in breach of European law and an interference with their human rights. The . .
CitedSporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden ECHR 23-Sep-1982
Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim
(Plenary Court) The claimants challenged orders expropriating their properties for redevelopment, and the banning of construction pending redevelopment. The orders remained in place for many years.
Held: Article 1 comprises three distinct . .

Cited by:
CitedBloggs 61, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 18-Jun-2003
The applicant sought review of a decision to remove him from a witness protection scheme within the prison. He claimed that having been promised protection, he had a legitimate expectation of protection, having been told he would receive protection . .
CitedGillan and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis and Another Admn 31-Oct-2003
The applicants challenged by way of judicial review the way they had been stopped and searched under the Act. They attended a demonstration. The search revealed nothing suspicious. General authorisations for such searches had been issued under the . .
CitedNilsen, Regina (on the Application of) v Governor of HMP Full Sutton and Another Admn 19-Dec-2003
The prisoner complained that having written an autobiography, the manuscript materials had been withheld, and that this interfered with his rights of freedom of expression.
Held: Such an action by the prison authorities was not incompatible . .
CitedA v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
CitedForbes v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 26-Jul-2005
The defendant argued that the 2003 Act was in breach of his article 8 rights. He had been registered as a sex offender, but the offence for which he had been convicted involved no proof of intention.
Held: The claimant having brought the . .
CitedLangley and others v Liverpool City Council and others CA 11-Oct-2005
Families had challenged the removal of their children into the care of foster parents by the respondents. The family father, who was blind, had taken to driving. The respondents appealed findings that they had acted unlawfully and in breach of the . .
CitedSecretary of State for Work and Pensions v M HL 8-Mar-2006
The respondent’s child lived with the estranged father for most of each week. She was obliged to contribute child support. She now lived with a woman, and complained that because her relationship was homosexual, she had been asked to pay more than . .
CitedForbes v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Jul-2006
The defendant had been placed on the sex offenders’ register on conviction for fraudulent evasion of prohibitions on importing goods, by importing indecent photographs of children. He had maintained that he had not known of the exact nature of the . .
CitedTweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland HL 13-Dec-2006
(Northern Ireland) The applicant sought judicial review of a decision not to disclose documents held by the respondent to him saying that the refusal was disproportionate and infringed his human rights. The respondents said that the documents were . .
CitedConnolly v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Feb-2007
The defendant appealed against her conviction under the Act for having sent indecent or grossly offensive material through the post in the form of pictures of an aborted foetus sent to pharmacists. She denied that they were offensive, or that she . .
CitedSomerville v Scottish Ministers HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; . .
CitedIn re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
CitedMohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 4) Admn 4-Feb-2009
In an earlier judgment, redactions had been made relating to reports by the US government of its treatment of the claimant when held by them at Guantanamo bay. The claimant said he had been tortured and sought the documents to support his defence of . .
CitedBritish Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Ahmad Admn 11-Jan-2012
The BBC wished to interview the prisoner who had been detained pending extradition to the US since 2004, and now challenged decision to refuse the interview.
Held: The claim succeeded. The decision was quashed and must be retaken. If ever any . .
CitedCore Issues Trust v Transport for London Admn 22-Mar-2013
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision made by TfL not to allow an advertisement on behalf of the Trust to appear on the outside of its buses. It was to read: ‘NOT GAY! EX-GAY, POST-GAY AND PROUD. GET OVER IT!’. The decision was said to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Elections, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.182053

Scargill v National Union of Mineworkers: EAT 27 Jan 2010

EAT CERTIFICATION OFFICER
Various issues arising out of disputed elections for positions within the National Union of Mineworkers.
Held:
(1) The Certification Officer had been entitled to find that the ‘Yorkshire Area Office Branch’ was not a branch of the Union constituted in accordance with its rules.
(2) The requirements of section 50 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that every member be accorded an equal entitlement to vote applies to elections for the positions specified in section 46 and not to any vote which may be involved in any prior process for nominating candidates for such positions.
Observations on the fact that the Union’s current arrangements do not secure that every member is a member of a properly constituted branch.

Underhill P J
[2010] UKEAT 0407 – 09 – 2701
Bailii
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 50
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPaul v NALGO 1987
The Certification Officer considered a challenged Union election, and said: ‘I take ‘election’ in this context to mean a process involving choice by nomination and, where there is more than one nomination, by vote.’ . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Elections

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.408512

Shindler v The United Kingdom: ECHR 7 May 2013

Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
Vote
Restriction on voting rights of non-resident citizens: no violation
Facts – The applicant, a British national, left the United Kingdom in 1982 following his retirement and moved to Italy with his Italian wife. After fifteen years residence overseas he was no longer entitled to vote in parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom. In his application to the European Court he argued that the fifteen-year time-limit on non-resident voting rights was not proportionate and violated his right to vote under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. In that connection, he noted that he had retained very strong ties with the United Kingdom and was affected by matters such as pensions, banking, financial regulations, taxation and health, which were all the subject of political decisions there.
Law – Article 3 of Protocol No. 1: The restriction on non-resident voting pursued the legitimate aim of confining the parliamentary franchise to those citizens with a close connection to the United Kingdom and who would therefore be most directly affected by its laws. The restriction did not impair the very essence of the right to vote as non-residents were permitted to vote in national elections for fifteen years following their emigration and the right was in any event restored if the person concerned returned to live in the United Kingdom.
Since the applicant had contended that any restriction on voting in national elections based on residence was of itself disproportionate, the Court had to examine, firstly, whether Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 required Contracting States to grant the right to vote to non-resident citizens without any restriction based on residence and, secondly, whether the legislation disenfranchising non-residents after fifteen years of non-residence was a proportionate limitation on the right to vote which struck a fair balance between the competing interests.
On the first of these issues, the Court reviewed the activities of various Council of Europe bodies and found that they had demonstrated a growing awareness at European level of the problems posed by migration in terms of political participation in countries of origin and residence. However, none of the material formed a basis for concluding that, as the law currently stood, States were under an obligation to grant non-residents unrestricted access to the franchise. Likewise, although there was a clear trend in the laws and practices of member States in this sphere in favour of allowing voting by non-residents, and a significant majority in favour of an unrestricted right, it could not be said that the stage had been reached where a common approach or consensus in favour of an unlimited right to vote for non-residents could be identified. Although the matter may need to be kept under review, the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the States in this area thus remained wide.
Turning to the second issue (proportionality) the fifteen-year period during which non-residents were allowed to vote after leaving the country was not unsubstantial. The fact that the applicant might personally have preserved a high level of contact with the United Kingdom, have detailed knowledge of its day-to-day problems and be affected by some of them did not render the imposition of the fifteen-year rule disproportionate as, while they require close scrutiny, general measures which do not allow for discretion in their application may nonetheless be compatible with the Convention. Having regard to the significant burden which would be imposed if the respondent State were required to ascertain in every application to vote by a non-resident whether the individual had a sufficiently close connection to the country, the Court was satisfied that the general measure in this case served to promote legal certainty and to avoid the problems of arbitrariness and inconsistency inherent in weighing interests on a case-by-case basis. It was also relevant that Parliament had sought to weigh the competing interests in the case on several occasions and had debated the question of non-residents’ voting rights in some detail. Indeed, the evolution of its views could be seen in amendments to the period of non-residence since the introduction of overseas voting in 1985.
In sum, regard being had to the margin of appreciation available to the domestic legislature, the restriction imposed by the respondent State on the applicant’s right to vote could be considered proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. The legislation thus struck a fair balance between the applicant’s interest in participating in parliamentary elections in his country of origin and the chosen legislative policy of the respondent State to confine the parliamentary franchise to citizens with a close connection with the United Kingdom who would therefore be most directly affected by its laws.

Ineta Ziemele, P
19840/09 – Chamber Judgment, [2013] ECHR 423, 19840/09 – Legal Summary, [2013] ECHR 547
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights P1A3
Human Rights
Citing:
Statement of FactsShindler v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Dec-2010
Statement of Facts . .

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

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.510995

Regina v Tronoh Mines Ltd: 1952

(Central Criminal Court) The defendant, while a general election was pending, published in a national newspaper an advertisement attacking the financial policy of the outgoing Labour government.
Held: The interpretion of laws restricting expenditure and ‘promoting the election of a candidate’ are inapplicable to advertising promoting or denigrating parties generally. Section 63 was not intended to prohibit expenditure incurred on advertisements designed to support the interest of a particular party generally in all constituencies, at any rate at the time of a general election and not supporting a particular candidate in a particular constituency.

McNair J
[1952] 1 All ER 697
Representation of the People Act 1949 63
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Luft HL 26-May-1976
The defendants were campaigning against the National Front in an election. They were separately said to have distributed leaflets infringing the 1949 Act, in that the expenses were not authorised, and the leaflets did not have the name of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.536062

Regina v Hailwood and Ackroyd Ltd: CCA 1928

During a parliamentary by-election in which there were three candidates, Conservative, Liberal and Labour, the accused had in- curred expenses on account of issuing publications which were antagonistic to the Conservative candidate and advised the constituents not to vote for him, but did not in express terms advise them to vote for either of the other candidates. It was held by the court that this constituted an offence under section 34(1). In delivering the judgment of the court, Avory J. said: ‘It is now suggested that, in a case like the present, where there are three candidates representing three different political parties, Conservative, Liberal and Labour, if a person who is not authorised by the election agent of a candidate incurs expenses of the kind in question he cannot be convicted under the section, which prohibits the incurring of the expenses for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of ‘any candidate’, unless it be shown definitely that he had the intention of promoting or procuring the election of one of these three candidates in particular. The answer to that suggestion is that the expression ‘any candidate’ in the section is not limited to one candidate only, since it is provided by the Interpretation Act. 1889 (52 and 53 Vict. c. 63), section 1 subsection (1)(b), that words in the singular shall include the plural. It is further said that the appellant is not liable, inasmuch as while he endeavoured to prevent the election of one of the candidates, he did not directly promote or procure the election of any of them. If, however, a person has done what is forbidden by the section for a purpose which must have the effect of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate or candidates then there can be no question that he has committed an offence under the section.’
Avory J
[1928] 2 KB 277
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Luft HL 26-May-1976
The defendants were campaigning against the National Front in an election. They were separately said to have distributed leaflets infringing the 1949 Act, in that the expenses were not authorised, and the leaflets did not have the name of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.536061

Tahirov v Azerbaijan: ECHR 11 Jun 2015

ECHR Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
Stand for election
Arbitrary refusal to register independent candidate in parliamentary elections: violation
Facts – The applicant wished to stand as an independent candidate in the parliamentary elections of November 2010. As required by the Electoral Code, he collected more than 450 voter signatures in support of his candidacy and submitted them to the Constituency Electoral Commission (‘the ConEC’). In October 2010 his candidacy was refused by the ConEC since, according to an expert working group established by the commission, a number of signatures were invalid, either because they had been executed by the same person or because information relating to the voter’s address was incomplete.
The applicant lodged a complaint with the Central Electoral Commission (‘the CEC’) arguing that in accordance with the Electoral Code he should have been invited to participate in the process of examining the signatures. He further alleged that the finding that 172 signatures had been ‘executed by the same person’ had been based on expert evidence as to probability without any further factual verification and that he should have been given the opportunity to rectify any incomplete addresses. In support of his complaint, he submitted written statements by 91 voters whose signatures had been declared invalid affirming the authenticity of their signatures.
The CEC dismissed the applicant’s complaint after its own working group found that 178 out of the 600 signatures he had submitted were invalid. The applicant was not invited to participate in that process either. The domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unsubstantiated, without examining his arguments in detail.
Law – Article 37 – 1: Various types of alleged violations of the rights protected under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention had been the subject of recurrent and relatively numerous complaints to the Court in cases against Azerbaijan after each parliamentary election. This appeared to disclose the existence of systemic or structural issues which called for adequate general measures by the authorities. No such measures were mentioned in the unilateral declaration that had been submitted by the respondent Government in the instant case. The declaration thus did not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols did not require the Court to continue its examination of the case.
Conclusion: Government’s request to strike the application out of the list dismissed (unanimously).
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1: The requirement of collecting 450 supporting signatures for nomination as a candidate had pursued the legitimate aim of reducing the number of fringe candidates.
The Court went on to examine whether the procedure laid down by the Azerbaijani Electoral Code for verifying compliance with that eligibility condition had been conducted in a manner which provided sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness. In that connection, it noted that an OSCE report concerning the Parliamentary Elections of 7 November 2010 in Azerbaijan had expressed concerns about the impartiality of ConEC, the transparency of the registration process and the refusals of registration based on minor technical mistakes. According to the report, most of the complaints received by the CEC challenging refusals had been dismissed without proper examination. Indeed, after the 2010 elections, the European Court itself had received around 30 applications, including the applicant’s, by candidates who had been refused registration owing to the invalidation of supporting signatures. While the refusal to register the applicant’s candidacy – as well as that of many other candidates – had resulted from the alleged inauthenticity of supporting signatures, the Government had not provided specific information about the qualifications and credentials of the working-group experts who had examined the applicant’s signature sheets. In the Court’s view, the lack of clear and sufficient information about the professional qualifications and the criteria for the selection and appointment of working-group experts charged with the task of examining signature sheets was a factor that could seriously undermine overall confidence in the fairness of the procedure of candidate registration and of the elections in general. In any event, the experts had found that there was only a probability that a number of signatures were not authentic, without even specifying how high that probability was. They had not requested any further investigation, although the CEC regulations on electoral commissions’ working groups had provided for possible additional steps in order to clarify the situation.
The applicant’s right to stand for election should not hinge on probabilities and vague opinions, but should be defined by clearly established criteria for compliance with the eligibility conditions. The electoral commissions’ conclusions had therefore been arbitrary. Moreover, none of the procedural guarantees against arbitrariness provided for by the Electoral Code – such as the candidate’s right to be present during the examination of signature sheets or to receive the examination report 24 hours before the relevant electoral commission’s meeting – had been respected. The applicant had therefore been deprived of the opportunity to provide relevant explanations, correct any shortcomings in the signature sheets and to challenge the findings of the working groups throughout the process, a situation which, according to the OSCE report, seemed to be of a systemic nature.
Furthermore, neither the CEC nor the domestic courts had addressed any of the well-founded arguments put forward by the applicant or provided proper reasoning in their judgments. Moreover, contrary to the requirements of the electoral law, the CEC had failed to ensure the applicant’s presence at its meeting. The conduct of the electoral commissions and courts had revealed an apparent lack of genuine concern for upholding the rule of law and protecting the integrity of the election. The applicant had thus not been provided with sufficient safeguards to prevent an arbitrary decision refusing his registration as a candidate.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
31953/11 – Legal Summary, [2015] ECHR 648
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights

Updated: 12 October 2021; Ref: scu.549953

Bradley v Baylis: CA 1881

The tenant of two rooms, which he took unfurnished at a weekly rent, had the exclusive use of such rooms and a key of the outer door of the house. His landlord had also a key of the outer door, and resided in all the rest of the house, but supplied no attendance or service to the tenant.
Held: Such a tenant occupied the rooms as a lodger. Although, by the 1878 Act, the term ‘dwelling-house’ in the Act of 1867 is provided to mean part of a house separately occupied, yet, in order to be entitled to the borough franchise as the occupier of a dwelling-house, the person must have an occupation in respect of which he can be rated to the relief of the poor and, therefore, he is not entitled to such a dwelling-house franchise by reason of the occupation of part of a house if he occupies such part as a lodger.
Sir George Jessel MR said: ‘. . it remains to consider when a man who occupies a rateable tenement is an occupying tenant, and when he occupies or uses it as a lodger only.
There is, probably, no question on which there has been a greater variety of judicial opinion than this . . . I think it wiser and safer to say that the question whether a man is a lodger, or whether he is an occupying tenant, must depend on the circumstances of each case.
‘First of all, take the case of a lodger. It seems to me, as to unfurnished lodgings where the owner of the house does not let the whole of it, but retains a part for his own residence, and resides there, and where he does not let out the passages, staircase and outer door, but gives to the ‘inmates’ . . . merely a right of ingress and egress, and retains to himself the general control, with the right of interfering – I do not mean an actual interference, but a right to interfere, a right to turn out trespassers, and so on; there I consider that such owner is the occupying tenant of the house, and the inmate, whether he has or has not the exclusive use of the room, is a lodger. That is one extreme case.
There will be an immense number of intermediate cases. Does it make any difference that the inmates have latch-keys to the outer door and also keys to the inner door? I think not. I think they are still lodgers notwithstanding. Does it make any difference that the landlord does not reside there personally, but has resident servants, who occupy, on his behalf, part of the house? I think not. I think that the inmates are still lodgers. Does it make any difference that the landlord does or does not repair? I think not; they are still lodgers.’
Sir George Jessel MR and Baggallay, Brett, Cotton and Lindley LJJ
(1881) 8 QBD 195
Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act 1878, Representation of the People Act 1867
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCrancour Ltd v Da Silvaesa and Another CA 26-Feb-1986
The plaintiff sought possession of two rooms in a house occupied by the defendants separately. The agreements stated that they were licences. The agreements excluded the occupiers between 10:30am and noon on each day. The occupiers claimed to be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 September 2021; Ref: scu.259698

Regina v His Honour Judge Sir Donald Hurst, ex parte Smith: QBD 1960

The County Court Judge had directed the removal from the electoral register the names of a number of persons who were not party to the proceedings before him. Motions were brought in the Divisional Court for an order of certiorari to quash his directions. The issue arose as to whether there was jurisdiction to do so, having regard to s.107 of the County Courts Act 1959 which provided: ‘Subject to the provisions of any other Act relating to county courts, no judgment or order of any judge of county courts, nor any appeal proceedings brought before him or pending in his court, shall be removed by appeal, motion, certiorari or otherwise into any other court whatever, except in the manner and according to the provisions of this Act mentioned.’
Held: Lord Parker CJ said: ‘The leading case on the matter is Ex p. Bradlaugh (1878), 3 Q.B.D. 509, where Mellor, J., put the principle in these words . . ‘It is well established that the provision taking away the certiorari does not apply where there was an absence of jurisdiction. The consequence of holding otherwise would be that a metropolitan magistrate could make any order he pleased without question.’
To the same effect is a number of cases including, coming to quite recent times, R. v. Worthington-Evans, Ex p. Madan [1959] 2 Q.B. at p.152 and Re Gilmore’s Application [1957] 1 Q.B. at p.588. I am quite satisfied that certiorari will lie against a county court judge if he has acted without jurisdiction, notwithstanding the sections of the County Courts Act, 1959, to which I have referred.’
Lord Parker CJ
[1960] 2 All ER 385
County Courts Act 1959 107
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 . .
CitedAnisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission HL 17-Dec-1968
All Public Law Challenges are For a Nullity
The plaintiffs had owned mining property in Egypt. Their interests were damaged and or sequestrated and they sought compensation from the Respondent Commission. The plaintiffs brought an action for the declaration rejecting their claims was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.442689

Bowman 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 Bowman’s communication of her views.
The Court emphasised the special importance of article 10 rights in elections: ‘Free elections and freedom of expression, particularly freedom of political debate, together form the bedrock of any democratic system . . The two rights are inter-related and operate to reinforce each other: for example, as the Court has observed in the past, freedom of expression is one of the ‘conditions’ necessary to ‘ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature . . For this reason, it is particularly important in the period preceding an election that opinions and information of all kinds are permitted to circulate freely.’
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Violation of Art. 10; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
Times 23-Feb-1998, 24839/94, (1998) 26 EHRR 1, [1998] ECHR 4
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 10, Representation of the People Act 1953
Human Rights
Cited by:
CitedRegina (Amicus etc) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Admn 26-Apr-2004
The claimants sought a declaration that part of the Regulations were invalid, and an infringement of their human rights. The Regulations sought to exempt church schools from an obligation not to discriminate against homosexual teachers.
Held: . .
CitedAnimal Defenders International, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport HL 12-Mar-2008
The applicant, a non-profit company who campaigned against animal cruelty, sought a declaration of incompatibility for section 321(2) of the 2003 Act, which prevented adverts with political purposes, as an unjustified restraint on the right of . .
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.
Updated: 06 September 2021; Ref: scu.165585

George Heriot, Et Alii, Styling Themselves Magistrates and Members of The Town Council of Haddington v William Ray, Et Alii, Likewise Styling Themselves Magistrates and Members of The Town Council of Haddington: HL 30 Apr 1735

Burgh royal – Prescription – Act 7. Geo. II. c. 16. An action being brought for setting aside the election of Magistrates on the ground of irregularities in the previous election of deacons of trades,it was found that the limitation of eight weeks imposed by the statute, was to be reckoned from the date of the election of Magistrates, and not from that of the deacons.
It was found that, in the event of an equality at the election of a deacon of the trade, the old deacon had a casting vote.
It being argued that a person was disqualified for voting at the election of a deacon, because he was bellman of the borough – the objection was repelled.
[1735] UKHL 1 – Paton – 171, (1735) 1 Paton 171
Bailii
Scotland

Updated: 01 September 2021; Ref: scu.554578

McWhirter v Platten: QBD 1970

An order was made for the inspection of uncounted ballot papers before the institution of a prosecution under the Act, on the ground that the offenders, and the nature of offences could not be ascertained until the ballot papers had been inspected.
[1970] 1 QB 508
Representation of the People Act 1983
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.
Updated: 01 September 2021; Ref: scu.179771

McLean 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 2009; the parliamentary election on 6 May 2010; elections to the Scottish Parliament on 5 May 2011; a nationwide referendum on the alternative vote on 5 May 2011; local government elections on various dates; and future elections.
Held: A local government body was not. local authorities in the United Kingdom were not part of the legislature in A3P1 and that complaint (v) was inadmissible. In relation to complaint (iv) the court reiterated (in para 32) that A3P1 was limited to elections concerning the choice of the legislature and did not apply to referendums. It continued: ‘There is nothing in the nature of the referendum at issue in the present case which would lead the court to reach a different conclusion here. It follows that complaint concerning the alternative vote referendum is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and its Protocols . . and must be rejected pursuant to article 35(4).’
Ineta Ziemele, P
2522/12, [2013] ECHR 1368, (2013) 57 EHRR SE8, 12626/13
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights A3P1, Representation of the People Act 1983
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 . .
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 . .
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.
Updated: 30 August 2021; Ref: scu.539933

Fairbairn 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 political representative but did not amount to an attack on his honour, veracity or purity. He rejected a claim of electoral malpractice, and said: ‘that every false statement in relation to thee public character of a candidate may in one sense reflect upon the candidate’s personal character, but before there can be an illegal practice in terms of the statute, the false statement of fact must be directly related to the personal character of conduct of the candidate.’
Lord Ross
(1979) SC 393
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 . .

Cited by:
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.
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.425815

Mackinlay and Others, Regina v: SC 25 Jul 2018

A trial had not yet been begun, but the court was now asked a point of pure statutory construction relating to the manner in which election expenses are required to be calculated and declared. The defendants face charges of knowingly making false declarations in relation to election expenses, or aiding and abetting or encouraging or assisting such offences. The parties asked the judge to determine the point on a preparatory hearing and the CACD certified the question: ‘Do property, goods, services or facilities transferred to or provided for the use or benefit of a candidate free of charge or at a discount (as identified in section 90C(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (as amended)) only fall to be declared as election expenses if they have been authorised by the candidate, his election agent or someone authorised by either or both of them?’
Held: No. The appeal was allowed.
The test for the operation of section 90C is the threefold one: ‘ Section 90C asks, by subsections (1)(a) and (b), three questions about the expenditure it is considering. If those questions are answered ‘yes’, then by subsection (2) it stipulates that the expenditure shall be ‘treated . . as incurred by the candidate’ for the purposes of the Act. That is a deeming provision. If the conditions are satisfied, the notional expenditure becomes by statute the same as if it had been actually incurred by the candidate, even though it has not actually been incurred by him. The three questions can be simplified for present purposes by expressing them in terms of services, but of course the same applies to goods, property or facilities. The questions posed by subsections (1)(a) and (b) are:
1. Were the services provided for the use or benefit of the candidate either free of charge or at a discount of more than 10% of commercial value? (subsection (1)(a))
2. Were they made use of by or on behalf of the candidate? (subsection (1)(b)) and
3. If the services had actually been paid for (expenses actually incurred) by or on behalf of the candidate, would those expenses be election expenses incurred by or on his behalf (and thus subject to the various controls imposed by the Act)? (also subsection (1)(b)).’
Lady Hale, President, Lord Mance, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones
[2018] UKSC 42, UKSC 2018/0091
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2018 May 28 am Video, SC 2018 May 28 pm Video
Representation of the People Act 1983, Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
England and Wales
Citing:
At CACDMackinlay and Others, Regina v CACD 1-Apr-2018
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.620136

Mackinlay and Others, Regina v: CACD 1 Apr 2018

[2018] EWCA Crim 724
Representation of the People Act 1983, Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
England and Wales
Cited by:
At CACDMackinlay and Others, Regina v SC 25-Jul-2018
A trial had not yet been begun, but the court was now asked a point of pure statutory construction relating to the manner in which election expenses are required to be calculated and declared. The defendants face charges of knowingly making false . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.666496

Edgell 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 not assisted by consideration of a standard of proof. That said, having regard to the consequences of declaring an election void, for the court to conclude the result is affected there will need to be a preponderance of evidence supporting that conclusion. The first respondent had not been duly elected. Given that errors were likely in any such process it was wrong to act on the basis that other errors did not exist. ‘I regard the use of a cross as presenting some difficulty for the requirement of authentication because it conveys no personal attribute or connection with the name of the voter. A signature has the attribute of purporting to be the signature of the name it represents. A cross can be placed by anyone and does not purport to be connected with any named person. ‘ The election was declared invalid.
The Honourable Mr Justice Newman The Honourable Mr Justice David Clarke
[2003] EWHC 2566 (QB)
Bailii
Representation of the People Act 1982 146
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRe Kensington North Parliamentary Election 1960
‘The question of the burden of proof does not, on the strict wording of section 16, really arise . . I think that with the change of wording under section 16(3) of the Act of 1949 it is for the court to make up its mind on the evidence as a whole . .
CitedLevers v Morris QBD 1972
The court drew a lot to decide the outcome of a drawn election. . .
CitedMorgan 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 . .
CitedNadeem Akhtar Saifi v Governor of Brixton Prison and Union of India Admn 21-Dec-2000
The applicant for habeas corpus resisted extradition to India on the ground, among others, that the prosecution relied on a statement obtained by torture and since retracted.
Held: the court accepted the magistrate’s judgment that fairness did . .
CitedSelby v Selby 1817
Signing: ‘That is signing is, putting his name to [the document] or [doing] some other act intended by him to be equivalent to the actual signature of the name – such as a person unable to write making his mark’. . .
CitedRegina v Moore 1884
(Australia) ‘Where a statute merely requires that a document shall be signed, the statute is satisfied by proof of the making of a mark upon the document by or by the authority of that signatory’. . .
CitedGoodman v Eban (J) Ltd CA 1954
The Court considered whether a rubber stamp facsimile of a solicitor’s firm on a bill of costs met the requirement for the bill to be ‘signed’.
Held: In connection with authentication: ‘It follows, I think, that the essential requirement of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 July 2021; Ref: scu.187466

Re Kensington North Parliamentary Election: 1960

‘The question of the burden of proof does not, on the strict wording of section 16, really arise . . I think that with the change of wording under section 16(3) of the Act of 1949 it is for the court to make up its mind on the evidence as a whole whether there was a substantial compliance with the law as to elections or whether the act or omission affected the result’
Streatfeild J, Slade J
[1960] 1 WLR 762
Representation of the People Act 1949 16
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2021; Ref: scu.187489

East Devon District Council v Electoral Commission (the Boundary Committee for England): Admn 8 Jan 2009

The Council sought to challenge proposals by the Commission for re-organisation of its boundaries. The Secretary of State had asked the Commission to see if there was any proposal which might lead to a unified authority but which also met the criteria identified in Breckland. The council said that the consultation should be all in one, and not in stages.
Held: The application failed. Though attractive, the suggestion made was incorrect: ‘it was open to the Committee, in performing its statutory task, to choose to defer consideration of affordability until publication of its draft proposal. In the circumstances that was not irrational, since the Committee did not wish to impose undue burdens on local authorities at an earlier stage, and also needed to collate information from them in the form of the workbooks with relevant financial information’ and ‘whether the public have been consulted in a meaningful and timely manner needs to be assessed against the backdrop of the particular consultation exercise. In my view, like many aspects of our democratic process consultation may be tangled and untidy. It encompasses a multitude of parties with a range of expertise and interest. ‘
‘what must happen is that the Boundary Committee should consider with care whether it would be right to make further alternative proposals for Devon. If it were to decide that that course were appropriate, it would need to comply with the statutory requirements, including that under section 6(4) of consulting on such further proposals. However, the nature of complying with that obligation would be conditioned by what has already occurred. The Boundary Committee could decide, in its discretion, that responses already received were such that a more limited, further consultation was all that was necessary. ‘
Cranston J
[2009] EWHC 4 (Admin), [2009] WLR(D) 5
Bailii
Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBreckland District Council and others v The Boundary Committee and Another Admn 28-Nov-2008
The councils sought to challenge the re-organisation of their boundaries. The proposal could result in their abolition and the introduction of a unitary system of local government in that county, extending to part of Suffolk.
Held: Parliament . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 May 2021; Ref: scu.279865

Regina 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 bring judicial review of the decision.
Held: It was not arguable that the respondent’s decision was perverse, and the election having passed, no further virtue was to be served by conducting a full review. Each such decision would be on its own merits.
The Master of The Rolls, Lord Woolf, Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Chadwick
[1997] EWCA Civ 2531, (1998) 10 Admin LR 425
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina 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 . .

Cited by:
CitedWillers v Joyce and Another (Re: Gubay (Deceased) No 1) SC 20-Jul-2016
Parties had been involved in an action for wrongful trading. This was not persisted with but the claimant sought damages saying that the action was only part of a campaign to do him harm. This appeal raised the question whether the tort of malicious . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 April 2021; Ref: scu.142929

Rothery v Evans: QBD 8 Mar 2021

Application for an interim injunction to restrain the Labour Party from proceeding with its candidate selection process for the Liverpool City Region Mayoral Election, which will take place on 6 May 2021.
Mr Justice Cavanagh
[2021] EWHC 577 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 19 April 2021; Ref: scu.659688

I-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 purchase the records for its register of addresses.
Held: The consultation had been adequate. The regulations did not create a duopoly, and any new registrant as a credit reference agency could also apply for access to the registers. The regulations were neutral as to the number of registrants. There was no exceptional case here deserving declaratory relief. The company had also delayed bringing its action to such an extent as to deprive it of the right to a judicial review, and nor was there any justification for declaratory relief.
The Honourable Mr Justice Maurice Kay
[2003] EWHC 1761 (Admin), Times 11-Aug-2003
Bailii
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 . .
CitedRobertson, 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 . .
CitedRegina v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan and Secretary of State for Health Intervenor and Royal College of Nursing Intervenor CA 16-Jul-1999
Consultation to be Early and Real Listening
The claimant was severely disabled as a result of a road traffic accident. She and others were placed in an NHS home for long term disabled people and assured that this would be their home for life. Then the health authority decided that they were . .
CitedPyx Granite Ltd v Ministry of Housing and Local Government HL 1959
There is a strong presumption that Parliament will not legislate to prevent individuals affected by legal measures promulgated by executive public bodies having a fair opportunity to challenge these measures and to vindicate their rights in court . .
CitedImperial Tobacco Ltd v Attorney-General HL 1980
The applicant sought a declaration as to the lawfulness of a lottery scheme whilst criminal proceedings were pending against it for the same scheme.
Held: It was not necessary to decide whether a declaration as to the criminality or otherwise . .
CitedAttorney-General v Able and Others QBD 28-Apr-1983
The Attorney General sought a declaration as to whether it would be the crime of aiding and abetting or counselling and procuring suicide, to distribute a booklet published by the respondent which described various effective ways of committing . .
CitedRegina v Her Majesty’s Attorney General ex parte Rusbridger and Another HL 26-Jun-2003
The applicant newspaper editor wanted to campaign for a republican government. Articles were published, and he sought confirmation that he would not be prosecuted under the Act, in the light of the 1998 Act.
Held: Declaratory relief as to the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 April 2021; Ref: scu.184880

Scoppola v Italy (No 3): ECHR 18 Jan 2011

(referral to the grand chamber)
F Tulkens P
126/05 French Text, [2011] ECHR 2417
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited by:
See AlsoScoppola 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. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 April 2021; Ref: scu.460678

Scoppola 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.
126/05, [2012] ECHR 868
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Citing:
See AlsoScoppola v Italy (No 3) ECHR 18-Jan-2011
(referral to the grand chamber) . .

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 . .
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 April 2021; Ref: scu.460181

Ashby v White: KBD 1703

Mr Ashby a burgess of the borough of Aylesbury was deprived of his right to vote by the misfeasance of a returning officer.
Held: The majority rejected the claim.
Lord Holt CJ (dissenting) An action would lie: ‘If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise or enjoyment of it; and indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy: for want of a right and want of remedy are reciprocal . . . My brother Powell thinks that an action on the case is not maintainable because there is no hurt or damage to the plaintiff but surely every injury imports a damage, though it does not cost the party one farthing, and it is impossible to prove the contrary; for a damage is not merely pecuniary but an injury imports a damage, when a man is thereby hindered of his rights.’ The right to vote was ‘a thing of the highest importance’ and on his ruling: ‘If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise or enjoyment of it; and indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy; for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal’.
Lord Holt CJ
[1703] 92 ER 126, 1 Smith’s Leading Cases (13th ed ) 253
Cited by:
CitedChagos Islanders v The Attorney General, Her Majesty’s British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner QBD 9-Oct-2003
The Chagos Islands had been a British dependent territory since 1814. The British government repatriated the islanders in the 1960s, and the Ilois now sought damages for their wrongful displacement, misfeasance, deceit, negligence and to establish a . .
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 . .
CitedThree Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3) HL 22-Mar-2001
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness
The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI.
Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also . .
CitedWatkins v Secretary of State for The Home Departmentand others CA 20-Jul-2004
The claimant complained that prison officers had abused the system of reading his solicitor’s correspondence whilst he was in prison. The defendant argued that there was no proof of damage.
Held: Proof of damage was not necessary in the tort . .
CitedWebb v Portland Manufacturing Co 1838
‘But I am not able to understand how it can correctly be said, in a legal sense, that an action will not lie, even in the case of a wrong or violation of a right, unless it is followed by some perceptible damage which can be established as a matter . .
CitedEmbrey v Owen 1851
Parke B said: ‘It was very ably argued before us by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs had a right to the full flow of the water in its natural course and abundance, as an incident to their property in the land through which . .
CitedNeville v London Express Newspaper HL 1919
The question was whether, in order to recover damages for the tort which existed, it was necessary to show specific loss.
Held: An action for damages for maintenance will not lie in the absence of proof of special damage. . .
CitedWatkins v Home Office and others HL 29-Mar-2006
The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.186665

Grieve v Douglas-Home: SCS 23 Dec 1964

(Election Court)
Lord Migdale
[1964] ScotCS 3, 1965 SC 315, 1965 SLT 186
Bailii
Scotland
Cited by:
DistinguishedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Luft HL 26-May-1976
The defendants were campaigning against the National Front in an election. They were separately said to have distributed leaflets infringing the 1949 Act, in that the expenses were not authorised, and the leaflets did not have the name of the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 March 2021; Ref: scu.279471

Knight v Nicholls and Another: QBD 19 Dec 2003

The returning officer had done what he could by sending out voting forms by post. It was not his fault if some were not delivered. The rules required them to be sent.
Times 29-Jan-2004
Local Elections (Principal Area) Rules 1986 (1986 No 2214) 19 76(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromKnight v Nicholls and Another CA 29-Jan-2004
The complainant said that in posting the postal voting forms, the returning officer had failed to ‘issue’ the ballot papers as required by the regulations.
Held: The word ‘issue’ did not mean the same as succesfully deliver. The regulations . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 March 2021; Ref: scu.194068

Knight v Nicholls and Another: CA 29 Jan 2004

The complainant said that in posting the postal voting forms, the returning officer had failed to ‘issue’ the ballot papers as required by the regulations.
Held: The word ‘issue’ did not mean the same as succesfully deliver. The regulations clearly accepted the postal system as a satisfactory way of issuing te ballot papers.
Tuckey, Sedley, Wall LJJ
Times 05-Feb-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 68, [2004] 1 WLR 1653
Bailii
Local Elections (Principal Area) Rules 1986
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromKnight v Nicholls and Another QBD 19-Dec-2003
The returning officer had done what he could by sending out voting forms by post. It was not his fault if some were not delivered. The rules required them to be sent. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 March 2021; Ref: scu.431562

The Attorney General v Jones: Admn 30 Apr 1999

Mrs Jones had been elected as an MP, but suspended after conviction for making a false declaration as to her election expenses. Her appeal was allowed, and no writ having been moved for another election, the AG asked whether she was entitled to resume her seat.
Held: She was: ‘ justice requires that when a conviction is set aside on appeal, all penalties imposed at the time of conviction should also, so far as possible, be set aside. It would require very clear statutory language to suggest otherwise and that is not to be found in section 160(4) or elsewhere in the 1983 Act. Where there is a conviction of the type with which we are concerned in this case, there is not only a need to do justice to the individual, but also to the electors she represents, and a need if possible to avoid the trauma and expense of a fresh election if there is no justification for that course.’
Kennedy LJ, Mitchell J
[1999] EWHC 837 (Admin), [1999] 3 All ER 436, [1999] 3 WLR 444, (1999) 11 Admin LR 557, [2000] QB 66
Bailii
Representation of the People Act 1983
England and Wales

Updated: 08 March 2021; Ref: scu.431595

Vote Leave Ltd v The Electoral Commission: CA 12 Nov 2019

The court rejected a complaint from the claimant as to its publishing a report critical of the claimant.
Held: The complaint was rejected. It was within the powers of the respondent.
Underhill LJ VP, Sigh, Nicola Davies LJJ
[2019] EWCA Civ 1938
Bailii
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
England and Wales

Updated: 07 March 2021; Ref: scu.643878

Frodl 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.
Christos Rozakis, P
(2011) 52 EHRR 5, [2010] ECHR 508, 20201/04
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights P1A3
Citing:
AdmissibilityFrodl v Austria ECHR 8-Jan-2009
Admissibility . .

Cited by:
CitedTovey 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.
JudgmentHelmut Frodl v Austria ECHR 14-Sep-2011
Execution of judgment . .
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 March 2021; Ref: scu.430520

Hirst 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.
[2009] ECHR 2260, 4025/01
Bailii
Representation of the People Act 1983 3, European Convention on Human Rights 3
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 . .
Grand ChamberHirst 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 March 2021; Ref: scu.430457

Rob Robb, William Miller, Senior, and George Robb, Burgesses of The Burgh of Anstruther Wester v William Thompson and Others, The Magistrates and Councillors of The Said Burgh: HL 26 Apr 1785

Burgh Election – Competency of Suit. – Held that burgesses, not being also councillors of the burgh, were not entitled to carry on a suit to set aside the election of the magistrates and town councillors of the burgh.
[1785] UKHL 3 – Paton – 21
Bailii
Scotland

Updated: 05 March 2021; Ref: scu.562205

Shindler v The United Kingdom: ECHR 20 Dec 2010

Statement of Facts
19840/09, [2010] ECHR 2222
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights, Representation of the People Act 1983
Cited by:
Statement of FactsShindler v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-May-2013
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
Vote
Restriction on voting rights of non-resident citizens: no violation
Facts – The applicant, a British national, left the United Kingdom in 1982 following his retirement and moved to Italy with his . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 March 2021; Ref: scu.429699

Culnane v Morris and Another: QBD 8 Nov 2005

No specific privilege arises from the fact that a statement has been made in the context of an election campaign.
Eady J
[2005] EWHC 2438 (QB), [2006] 1 WLR 2880
Bailii
Defamation Act 1952 10
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedQuinton v Peirce and Another QBD 30-Apr-2009
One election candidate said that another had defamed him in an election leaflet. Additional claims were made in injurious falsehood and under the Data Protection Act.
Held: The claim in defamation failed. There were no special privileges in . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 February 2021; Ref: scu.235123

The Good Law Project, Regina (on The Application of) v The Electoral Commission: CA 17 Sep 2019

Appeal by the Electoral Commission against an order of the Divisional Court by which it granted the Good Law Project’s application for judicial review of the Electoral Commission’s decision not to open an investigation into campaign spending of, and donations received by, Vote Leave Limited and Mr Darren Grimes in connection with the referendum on membership of the European Union.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘the correct interpretation of the legislation read as a whole is that a donation to a permitted participant cannot also be an expense incurred by the donor. This interpretation accords both with the natural and ordinary meaning of the 2000 Act and its underlying objectives. It would provide clarity for all those concerned who have to interpret and apply the legislation in a practical way.’
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Singh and Lady Justice Nicola Davies
[2019] EWCA Civ 1567
Bailii
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 111(2)
England and Wales

Updated: 24 February 2021; Ref: scu.641792

Lynch v British Broadcasting Corporation: QBNI 1983

Impartiality in the context of a broadcasters duties during an election is not to be equated simply with parity or balance as between political parties of different strengths, popular support and appeal.
Hutton J
[1983] NI 193 QBD
Northern Ireland
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 February 2021; Ref: scu.181970

Mabbutt (on His Own Behalf and On Behalf of The Conservative Party): QBD 8 Jul 2014

The applicant sought relief under the 2004 Regulations after, as agent for several Conservative party candidates, had had distributed election materials which had not correctly included the necessary details identifying the printer etc.
Held: Relief was granted.
Nicol, Popplewell JJ
[2014] EWHC 2244 (QB)
Bailii
European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 2004
England and Wales

Updated: 20 February 2021; Ref: scu.533868

Chester, 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.
Burton J
[2009] EWHC 2923 (Admin), [2010] HRLR 6, [2010] UKHRR 317, [2010] ACD 28
Bailii
Representation of the People Act 1983 3, European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 8, European Convention on Human Rights P1-3, Human Rights Act 1998 4
Cited by:
CitedChester 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 . .
At First InstanceChester, 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 February 2021; Ref: scu.381463