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:
Cited – Director 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
