Skip to main content

Bordesley Election Petition - today's proceedings

Apart from police evidence as to who did what (and other allegations), there are two key areas of dispute in the Bordesley Election Petition.

These relates to the ballot papers that were counted.

One relates to a particular group of three ballot boxes that contained lots of Envelope "A"s. Each of the Envelope "A"s contained both a ballot paper and a Declaration of Identity.

The Commissioner at the time of writing has picked on the interesting point in law which is that if the electoral procedures are operating correctly then there should be no Envelope "A"s containing both a ballot paper and DoI.

In theory the ballot paper is placed in Envelope A and Envelope A and the DoI are placed in Envelope B.

When EnvB is opened the number on the DoI and EnvA should be checked. At that stage if there is no DoI then EnvA should be opened. Therefore at the count there should be no EnvB's with DoIs and Ballot papers (because if that had been what had happened then they would have been opened when EnvB was opened.

The row at the count was "where have these boxes come from". The row at the count should have been "These are just EnvA with DoI and Ballot and are hence invalidly counted".

The mere fact that 1500+ voters theoretically made the same mistake of filling EnvA with DoI and ballot paper raises substantial questions.

The second area are the different categories of votes argued by the petitioners to be fraudulent based upon aspects of the DoI and application for postal votes.

ReasonNumber of ballots
The same witness has used a number of different addresses289
The signature of the witness varies whilst the address is constant387
The voter has also signed as witness438
The signature on 2 or more ballots is the same23
The signature on the declaration of identity is not the same as on the application for a postal vote1637
Votes changed to Labour votes with tippex etc109
There are also some which are know to be forged????
Total (some in more than one category)more than 2414


A worrying element of this is that the signatures on 719 of the 994 permanent postal votes differ between application and DoI. Only 109 permanent postal votes existed prior to 2004.

It is wrong to assume that the total number of votes being challenged is 1500+2414 as they will overlap.

The point about these cases, however, is not that the number of votes has to equate to the difference between parties, but that the large number of fraudulent votes demonstrates that there was widespread fraud in the election and hence it is not valid.

The issue that then arises is can it be shown that any of the candidates are personally responsible for this either directly or by allowing it to occur.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…