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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

Hirst 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 disproportionate. Different signatory countries had applied different standards. The UK law made a great distinction between different categories of offender or crime, but did not apply the same rules to prisoners on remand or imprisoned for non-payment of fines or contempt. There was no evidence of the issues having been considered by parliament in a way which took account of the issues of human rights.
74025/01, Times 08-Apr-2004, (2004) 38 EHRR 825, [2004] ECHR 122
Bailii, Bailii
Representation of the People Act 1983 3, European Convention on Human Rights A3-1
Human Rights
Citing:
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 . .

Cited by:
CitedNilsen v HM Prison Full Sutton and Another CA 17-Nov-2004
The prisoner, a notorious murderer had begun to write his autobiography. His solicitor wished to return a part manuscript to him in prison to be finished. The prison did not allow it, and the prisoner claimed infringement of his article 10 rights. . .
At CommissionHirst 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 . .
At CommissionHirst 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. . .
CitedTigere, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 29-Jul-2015
After increasing university fees, the student loan system was part funded by the government. They introduced limits to the availability of such loans, and a student must have been lawfully ordinarily resident in the UK for three years before the day . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 February 2021; Ref: scu.195514

Py v France: ECHR 11 Jan 2005

The claimant, a French national wished to vote in a French overseas territory. Registration was refused because he had not been permanently resident for ten years. The local administration was concerned that ballots should reflect the will of the local population and should not be affected by mass voting by recent arrivals in the territory who did not have strong ties with it. The ten year residence requirement had been laid down ‘after a turbulent political and institutional history’ and had been instrumental in alleviating the ‘bloody conflict’.
Held: The restrictions imposed on the applicant’s right to vote were warranted. The court stated as general principles: ‘Contracting States have a wide margin of appreciation, given that their legislation on elections varies from place to place and from time to time. The rules on granting the right to vote, reflecting the need to ensure both citizen participation and knowledge of the particular situation of the region in question, vary according to the historical and political factors peculiar to each state. The number of situations provided for in the legislation on elections in many member States of the Council of Europe shows the diversity of possible choice on the subject. However, none of these criteria should in principle be considered more valid than any other provided that it guarantees the expression of the will of the people through free, fair and regular elections. For the purposes of applying Art.3, any electoral legislation must be assessed in the light of the political evolution of the country concerned, so that features that would be unacceptable in the context of one system may be justified in the context of another.’ and ‘The State’s margin of appreciation, however, is not unlimited. It is for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Protocol No.1 have been complied with. It has to satisfy itself that any such conditions do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate. In particular, such conditions must not thwart ‘the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature’.’
66289/01, [2005] ECHR 7, [2006] 42 EHRR 26
Bailii, Bailii
Human Rights
Cited by:
CitedBarclay and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and others CA 2-Dec-2008
barclay_ssjCA2008
The claimant appealed against refusal of his challenge to the new constitutional law for Sark, and sought a declaration of incompatibility under the 1998 Act. He said that by restricting the people who could stand for election, a free democracy had . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 January 2021; Ref: scu.227663

Choudry and others v Triesman: ChD 31 Mar 2003

The applicants sought an order requiring the respondent general secretary of the Labour Party to allow them to stand as candidates for the party in the forthcoming local elections. After allegations about the way in which selection had been carried out, the party imposed its own candidates.
Held: The principles for the grant of mandatory interim injunctions had been laid down in Nottingham Building Society. Here, a serious triable issue had been raised, but the risk of injustice would be greater if the injunction were granted than if not. If granted the party would not have the election candidates of its choice, but if not granted, the candidates would still be able to stand for election.
Stanley Burton J said of the Labour Party: ‘Its constitution is contained in its rules contained in the rule book, which constitute a contract to which each member adheres when he joins the party’
Stanley Burton J
Times 02-May-2003, Gazette 05-Jun-2003, [2003] EWHC 1203 (Comm)
Bailii
Citing:
CitedNottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems plc 1993
The court laid down tests for the granting of mandatory interim injunctions. The court should consider whether there was a high degree of confidence that the applicant would succeed in establishing his right at trial. The higher that confidence, the . .

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

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.181839

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

A law which removed a prisoner’s right to vote whilst in prison was not incompatible with his human rights. The implied right to vote under article 3 was not absolute, and states had a wide margin of appreciation as to how and to what extent the right should be limited, provided that the conditions should not curtail the rights to such an extent as to remove their effectiveness, and should only be imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and should not be disproportionate.
Lord Justice Kennedy
Times 17-Apr-2001, Gazette 07-Jun-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 239
Bailii
Representation of the People Act 1983 3 (1), European Convention on Human Rights 3
Cited by:
Appeal fromHirst v The United Kingdom (No. 2) ECHR 30-Mar-2004
(Commission) The prisoner alleged that the denial of his right to vote whilst in prison was disproportionate. He was serving a life sentence for manslaughter.
Held: The denial of a right to vote was in infringement of his rights and . .
74025/01, Times 08-Apr-04, (2004) 38 EHRR 825, [2004] ECHR 122
Appeal fromHirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
Times 10-Oct-05, 74025/01, (2006) 42 EHRR 41, [2005] ECHR 681

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 December 2020; Ref: scu.85999

HM Attorney-General v Jones: Admn 23 Apr 1999

When an MP had lost her parliamentary seat for a conviction of electoral fraud, but the conviction was overturned on appeal, the vacation of the seat was set aside, and she was restored provided only that the writ for the election had not been returned.
Times 03-May-1999, Gazette 26-May-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 350
Bailii
Representation of the People Act 1953

Updated: 17 December 2020; Ref: scu.77988

Levers v Morris: QBD 1972

The court drew a lot to decide the outcome of a drawn election.
[1972] 1 QB 221
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 . .
[2003] EWHC 2566 (QB)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.187487

X v United Kingdom: ECHR 3 Oct 1975

The applicant, a serving prisoner, complained that he had been excluded from voting in the referendum on the British membership of the EEC.
Held: Article 10 does not guarantee a right to vote as such.
Article 3 Protocol 1 : the obligations of the High Contracting Parties under this provision are limited to the field of elections concerning the choice of the legislature. British Referendum on EEC membership outisde the scope of this provision.
7096/75
European Convention on Human Rights A3P1 810
Human Rights
Cited by:
CitedMoohan and Another v The Lord Advocate SC 17-Dec-2014
The petitioners, convicted serving prisoners, had sought judicial review of the refusal to allow them to vote in the Scottish Referendum on Independence. The request had been refused in the Outer and Inner Houses.
Held: (Kerr, Wilson JJSC . .
[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

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.541521

X v United Kingdom: ECHR 1979

(Commission) The claimant sought admission of her complaint that being employed by the European Commission and resident in Belgium she had lost her right to vote. She contrasted her position with that of members of the armed forces and members of diplomatic missions who retained their votes though overseas.
Held: The complaint was inadmissible. The comparators remained in the employment of the UK government and were sent overseas under compulsion. The discrimination was justified. They were resident-citizens, in contrast to the applicant who was living abroad voluntarily.
(1979) 15 DR 137
Human Rights
Cited by:
CitedSmith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) SC 30-Jun-2010
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2.
[2010] UKSC 29, [2010] WLR (D) 165, [2010] 3 WLR 223, [2010] 3 All ER 1067, [2011] 1 AC 1, [2010] Inquest LR 119, [2010] UKHRR 1020, [2010] HRLR 28, 29 BHRC 497

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.420211

Richard Beswick v Henry Aked: 29 Jan 1846

Henry Aked, James Aked, and forty other persons mentioned in a schedule annexed to the case, claimed to be entitled to vote for the southern division of the county of Lancaster, in respect of the same freehold premises, which consisted of several small houses situate in the township of Lancaester
[1846] EngR 356, (1846) 2 CB 156, (1846) 135 ER 902
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.302251

John Stephenson Robson v Lawrence Lawson Brown: 14 Nov 1856

Appeals cannot be consolidated under the 6 and 7 Vict. e. 18, s. 44, unless they depend upon the same precise point of law.-Where, therefore, a consolidated appeal contained a different statement of facts as applicable to the several voters, requiring several decisions in point of law, the court declined to entertain it.
[1856] EngR 899, (1856) 1 CB NS 34, (1856) 140 ER 14
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.291654

Wilson v Independent Broadcasting Authority: OHCS 1979

In the lead up to the Scottish referendum on Devolution, the Authority required the broadcasters to carry party political broadcasts for each of the four main parties. Three parties favoured voting yes in the referendum, and the authority was injuncted by those opposing the Yes campaign.
Held: The injunction was set aside. The Act required the Authority to maintain a balance of approximately for each case. The court considered how the broadcasting media should achieve balance during elections.
Lord Ross said: ‘I see no reason in principle why an individual should not sue in order to prevent a breach by a public body of a duty owed by that public body to the public. It may well be that the Lord Advocate could be a petitioner if the interests of the public as a whole were affected…, but I see no reason why an individual should not sue provided always that the individual can qualify an interest.
Having considered the petitioners’ averments, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have averred sufficient interest.
(1) They are voters and the Referendum gives them the choice to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
(2) They belong to an organisation or group who apparently believe that the question should be answered ‘No’.
(3) It is implicit in the name of the organisation or group that the petitioners wish to persuade other voters to vote ‘No’.
It is plain from the petition and the answers that the petitioners and the political parties believe that the programmes are likely to be influential upon the electorate in Scotland, and if that is so, the petitioners have an interest to see that the respondents do not act in breach of any statutory duties in relation to such programmes.’
Lord Ross
[1979] SC 351 OH, [1979] SLT 279
Broadcasting Act 1990
Cited by:

  • Cited – Regina 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 . .
    [1997] EWHC Admin 406
  • Cited – Axa General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SCS 8-Jan-2010
    axaReSCS201
    The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2009 Act by judicial review. The Act would make their insured and themselves liable to very substantial unanticipated claims for damages for pleural plaques which would not previousl or otherwise . .
    2010 GWD 7-118, 2010 SLT 179, [2010] ScotCS CSOH – 02, Times 19-Jan-10
  • Cited – AXA 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 . .
    UKSC 2011/0108, [2011] UKSC 46, 2011 SLT 1061, [2012] 1 AC 868, (2011) 122 BMLR 149, [2011] 3 WLR 871, [2012] HRLR 3, [2011] UKHRR 1221

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2020; Ref: scu.181971

Williams v Mayor of Tenby: CCP 1879

The defendant had not given appropriate notices under the act and complained that his petition had been struck out: ‘It is said that there would be hardship supposing money deposited, if mere omission of notices should prevent a petition. I see no more hardship than may occur in any case where a definite time is to be observed, and I see good reason why it should be so. There are two alternatives given, and it is reasonable that the parties should know which has been adopted, viz deposit or recognisance, and, if the latter, that he should be set instantly on inquiry whether the securities are good and valid or not. [The judge then referred to the relevant rules which provided for any objection to the proposed security to be made within five days] So not only is the person depositing security limited by the rules as to time, but the person objecting to the security is limited likewise. If we were to carve out of this procedure what is permissive and what is peremptory, we should launch persons into greater litigation than even they embark on, for we should be asked to vary the particular time in each case. I think the petitioners in these cases are advised by competent persons, and ought to pursue the provisions of the Act. One other argument was founded on rule 44, that ‘all interlocutory questions and matters, except as to the sufficiency of the security, shall be heard and disposed of before a judge, who shall have the same control over the proceedings under the [1872 Act] as a judge at chambers in the ordinary proceedings of the superior Courts . . ‘. That rule seems to leave the question where it is. If it is matter of procedure, then the judge will have some powers. But if the Act does not give these powers, then he has them not. The question still is whether the provisions of the Act are or are not peremptory. I think they are peremptory, and that the terms not complied with are conditions precedent which ought to be complied with before the petition could be presented. The appeal must be dismissed.’
References: [1879] 5 CPD 135
Judges: Lopes J, Grove J
Statutes: Municipal Elections Act 1872 13(4)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Ullah and Others, Ahmed v Pagel, Scallan, Kennedy CA 12-Dec-2002
    The claimants sought to issue election petitions to challenge the results of local elections. The petitioners had complied with all the rules save that they had failed to serve the notice of presentation within the five day period. The claimants . .
    (Times 20-Jan-03, , [2002] EWCA Civ 1793, [2003] LGR 161, [2003] 1 WLR 1820, [2003] 2 All ER 440)
  • Cited – Devan Nair v Yong Kuan Teik PC 1967
    (Malaysia) The Malaysian election rules provide in certain circumstances for service by a notice published in the Gazette but such notice was in the event out of time.
    Held: The respondent’s appeal should be allowed and the petition struck . .
    ([1967] 2 AC 31)
  • Cited – Absalom v Gillett QBD 1995
    An application was made under rule 13 to strike out a local government election petition for non-compliance with s.136(3) and rule 6: the petitioners there had served the notice on the returning officer but had not served the successful candidates. . .
    ([1995] 2 All ER 661, [1995] 1 WLR 128)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 26 November 2020; Ref: scu.181800

Regina v Cripps, ex parte Muldoon: QBD 1984

C, a barrister was appointed to hear an election petition under section 115. The petitioners later sought an order of certiorari to quash his costs award. It was claimed that no such remedy lay against the tribunal.
Held: Certiorari would lie. Once the election court had made its order, it was functus officio, and not free to return to its earlier order and amend it under the slip rule. Goff LJ observed that the Court-Martial Appeal Court and the Restrictive Practices Court were simple examples of courts which were not inferior for the purposes of judicial review.
References: [1984] 1 QB 68
Judges: Goff LJ
Statutes: Representation of the People Act 1949 110, 115
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Cart 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 . .
    (, [2009] EWHC 3052 (Admin), [2010] PTSR 824, [2010] 2 FCR 309, [2010] 1 All ER 908, [2010] 2 WLR 1012, [2009] STI 3167, [2010] STC 493)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.442690

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

Provided it could be seen from their report that the Commissioners had properly addressed themselves to the central statutory issues, a failure to refer explicitly to a report of the Secretary of State did not invalidate it.
References: Times 15-Mar-1999

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.89230

Regina 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.
References: Gazette 27-May-1992, [1992] 1 WLR 1059
Statutes: Representation of the People Act 1983 115
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – 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 . .
    (, [2008] EWHC B5 (QB))
  • Cited – 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 . .
    (, [2010] EWHC 2702 (QB))
  • Cited – Erlam and Others v Rahman and Another QBD 23-Apr-2015
    The petitioners had alleged that the respondent, in his or his agent’s conduct of his campaign to be elected Mayor for Tower Hamlets in London in May 2014, had engaged in corrupt and illegal practices.
    Held: The election was set aside for . .
    (, [2015] EWHC 1215 (QB))

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.87653

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

On a consideration of the statutes dealing with the franchise for universities, that women graduates of a Scottish university are not entitled to vote at the election of a Member of Parliament for the university, and, not being voters, are not entitled to receive voting papers from the registrar of the university.
References: [1908] UKHL 132, 46 SLR 132
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Ashbourne, Lord Robertson, and Lord Collins
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.621531

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

The claimant interest group sought judicial review of alleged failure of the Electoral Commission properly to discharge its responsibility to oversee spending of Vote Leave Limited and certain other campaigners in the period leading up to the referendum held in June 2016 on whether or not the UK should remain a member of the European Union. Permission to proceed with the claim was refused when the claim was considered on the papers but the request for permission has been renewed at an oral hearing.
References: [2018] EWHC 602 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Leggatt LJ, Holgate J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.608928

English Democrats Party v Electoral Commission: Admn 14 Feb 2018

The claimant party challenged the removal by the defendant of elements of their description on their registration as a political party.
References: [2018] EWHC 251 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 107
Links: Bailii, WLRD
Judges: Supperstone J
Statutes: Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 17 November 2020; Ref: scu.605602

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

Application for permission to amend the grounds of a judicial review claim of a decision of the Local Government Election Court which found the Applicant personally guilty and guilty by his agents of a number of electoral offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983.
Held: Refused
References: [2017] EWHC 1413 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Llloyd Jones LJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 10 November 2020; Ref: scu.588892

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

No action lies upon this statute against the Sheriff, for making a double return; but action lies against the clerk chosen by the minority of the meeting, who secede from the rest, for returning to the Sheriff the candidate elected by that minority. ( – Member of Parliament. – Act 7. Geo. II. c. 16.)
References: [1743] UKHL 1 – Paton – 346, (1743) 1 Paton 346
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556794

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

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Articles 39 and 49 – European Parliament – Elections – Right to vote – Citizenship of the European Union – Retroactive effect of the more lenient criminal law – National legislation providing for the deprivation of the right to vote in the case of a criminal conviction by a final judgment delivered before 1 March 1994
References: [2016] CEC 599, [2015] EUECJ C-650/13, [2015] WLR(D) 402, ECLI:EU:C:2015:648, [2016] 2 CMLR 1, [2016] 1 WLR 1223
Links: Bailii, WLRD
Statutes: Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 13 October 2020; Ref: scu.553094

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

The applicants were all incarcerated at the relevant time following criminal convictions for a variety of offences. They were automatically prevented from voting, pursuant to primary legislation, in one or more of the following elections: elections to the European Parliament on 4 June 2009; the parliamentary election on 6 May 2010; and elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Irish Assembly on 5 May 2011 (for further details see the appended table).
References: 51987/08 – Committee Judgment, [2015] ECHR 155
Links: Bailii
Judges: Paivi Hirvela, P
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction: Human Rights

Last Update: 08 October 2020; Ref: scu.542456

Regina v Henry Moore Griffiths; 11 Jun 1857

References: [1857] EngR 661, (1857) 7 El & Bl 952, (1857) 119 ER 1501
Links: Commonlii
The high sheriff of a county, in August 1854, appointed G. election auditor for the county, under The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, S. 15), to act at any elections for and during the year then next ensuing, and until another appointment should be made. No fresh appointment was made in 1855. In March 1856 the then high sheriff appointed W. election auditor for the current year. – On a rule for a quo warranto against G. :-Held, that it was not necessary that the appointment for 1855-1856 should be made during the month of August: that W. was well appointed ; and that, on his appointment, Q. ceased to be election auditor : and the rule was made absolute.
Statutes: Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854

Regina v Secretary of State ex parte Toner and Walsh; NIQB 1997

References: [1997] NIQB 18
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.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Tovey and Others -v- Ministry of Justice QBD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 271 (QB))
    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.

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

References: 218 DLR (4th) 577, 168 CCC (3d) 449, 5 CR (6th) 203, 294 NR 1, JE 2002-1974, [2002] SCJ No 66 (QL), 117 ACWS (3d) 553, [2002] ACS no 66, 55 WCB (2d) 21, 98 CRR (2d) 1, [2002] 3 SCR 519, 2002 SCC 68 (CanLII)
Links: Canlii
Coram: McLachlin CJ and L’Heureux-Dube, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
Canlii Supreme Court of Canada – Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Right to vote – Prisoners – Canada Elections Act provision disqualifying persons imprisoned in correctional institution serving sentences of two years or more from voting in federal elections – Crown conceding that provision infringes right to vote – Whether infringement justified – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 3 – Canada Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-2, s. 51(e).
Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Equality rights – Prisoners – Canada Elections Act provision disqualifying persons imprisoned in correctional institution serving sentences of two years or more from voting in federal elections – Whether provision infringes equality rights – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 15(1) – Canada Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-2, s. 51(e).
Elections – Disqualifications of electors – Prisoners – Canada Elections Act provision disqualifying persons imprisoned in correctional institution serving sentences of two years or more from voting in federal elections – Whether provision constitutional – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 3, 15(1) – Canada Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-2, s. 51(e).
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Chester, Regina (on The Application of) -v- Secretary of State for Justice SC (Bailii, [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, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0151, SC Summary, SC)
    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 . .