Skip to main content

Election Petitions 2007

Election Petitions 2007

For the interests of the psephological political junkies I have obtained copies of all 8 election petitions that have been issued in England and Wales for the local elections in May 2007 and will give a summary of each of them. I have put my comments as to how I think the cases are likely to progress.

Terry Judkins Conservative of Portsmouth has issued a petition against the Lib Dem Candidates for Southsea Ward (who won) because of leaflets issued by both the Lib Dems and a group of candidates known as "Why Pay Extra" claiming that the leaflets about the sale of Palmerston Road Shops which claimed that the voters had been "hoodwinked by Southsea Town Council" were untrue. This will be a debate about the facts.

Angela Harrison has issued a petition against James Astill in the Ward of Crowland and Deeping St Nicholas in South Holland District. James Astill was declared as having 338 votes and Angela Harrison 337, but not all the ballot papers were counted. When there was a recount including the papers on 17th May Angela Harrison had 608 votes and James Astill 601 votes. This looks a straightforward one to me and if I were James Astill I would try to minimise the costs by basically accepting the petition. The returning officer should pay the costs here.

Ahmed Khan has issued a petition against Audrey McMillan in Beacon and Benis ward of South Tyneside Council. This is based upon claimed false statements by the Labour Candidate, that "a serving councillor and candidate for election in the Horsley Hill Ward, Iain Malcolm, was observed to be in unauthorised possession of postal ballot papers"; postal ballot papers were opened early; Audrey McMillan's supporters blocked entrances to the polling stations, Ocean Road Community Centre should not have been chosen as the polling station because Audrey McMillan was the chair of the Management Committee and the electorate was not consulted; that they were not told how many postal ballot papers were obtained.
This looks like a mixture of complaints none of which would invalidate the election.

Lydia Emelda Simmons has issued a petition against Eshaq Khan for Central Borough of Slough. This makes claims about false registrations and postal voting fraud. Eshaq Khan won by 1439 votes to 1319 votes. This one will depend upon the evidence. If the petitioner can prove that the winning candidate or one of his agents did the fraud then she will win however many votes it is (as long as the candidate or his formal agent can be proven to have known what was going on). Alternatively if she can prove that more than 120 votes for the winning candidate were corrupted then she can get a declaration of "general corruption".

Saeed Aehmed Lib Dem has issued a petition against Muhammed Afzal Labour in Aston Ward, Birmingham. This petition is about false claims about Saeed by agents on behalf of the Labour Party.
This will rest on proof

John Fitch has a petition against Tom Stephenson in Abbey Ward of Leicester City Council. This is based upon the fact that only 4,930 of the 9,099 votes cast have been counted.
This depends upon the facts and the recount

Michelle Pilling, Scott Atkinson, Susan McDevitt and Ian Smith, voters in Burnley have issued a petition against Paul Reynolds in Rosegrove and Lowerhouse Ward of Burnley Council. In this case Paul Reynolds and Peter John Rowe both got 489 votes and after the drawing of lots Paul Reynolds was declared to be elected. However, the returning officer published a notice which said that Paul Reynolds had 490 votes and Peter Rowe 489 and that a ballot paper that was void for uncertainty was counted.
This is basically a call for a recount

Shakir Saghir English Democrat has issued a petition against Arshad Mahmood Labour in Park Ward of Calderdale on the basis that the Respect Candidate was a disqualified candidate. The winning Labour candidate got 1,500 Respect 1,147 and the Lib Dem 1,022. This is a petition that should invalidate the election. Whether it would allow the reopening of nominations or merely re-run with the same candidates (excluding the one who should not been allowed to stand) is something I would not be clear on and may be within the discretion of the election court.

Comments

Jo said…
the burnley case is not a call for a recount but essentially essentially a challenge to the RO's positive adjudication of a disputed ballot paper of a Labour vote
Unity said…
On the Calderdale petition, the Election Court could take the view that the disputed status of the Respect candidate had no material effect on the outcome, as it was a Labour candidate who was returned, and deny the petition.
Peter said…
The Burnley one has been decided, there is to be a recount.

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. …

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…

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…