Skip to main content

Election Petitions 2008

I have obtained a copy of both of the election petitions from 2008. I have not identified any conclusions from the petitions.

Northwood and Birches Head Ward - Stoke
This petition raised by Eve Maley alleges procedural problems at the count. She was an independent against "Potteries Alliance", BNP, Labour and Lib Dems and lost in the end by one vote.

Quoting from the petition:

"The result of the first count was that the Petitioner had won by one vote. A recount was requested on behalf of [the winner] and the result of this recount was that the Petitioner had one more vote than the [the winner]. [the winner] asked for another recount, the result of which was also that the Petitioner had won by one vote.

"The petitioner was advised during the count that the third recount ahd produced the same result as the previous counts, but that on the fourth recount, held again at the request of [the winner] two extra ballot papers had been count, marked in his favour and the reasult, therefore, was that he had one more vote than the Petitioner."

"The petitioner requested a recount but the [returning officer] refused the Petitioner her request and declared [the winner] as duly elected."

"During the count, the Petitioner was not shown any rejected ballot papers and therefore, not given any opportunity to object to any which were rejected."

"The total number of votes which were cast remained the same in all five counts."

The [returning officer] did not conduct the elections properly in that:

a) He failed to properly count and record the number of ballot papers in each ballot box.
b) He failed in the presence of the election agents to verify each ballot paper account.
c) He failed to count such of the postal ballot papers as were duly returned and record the number counted.
d) He failed to allow the Petitioner a re-count when in the circumstances of the case, such a request was reasonable. Further or alternatively the [returning officer] should have allowed the re-count given all the circumstances surrounding the re-count and given that the 1st Respondent would have, any in fact, has now appeared biased particularly in light of the ligitation the parties are involved in.
e) He may have rejected ballot papers which ought not to have been rejected and/or failed to reject ballot papers which ought to have been rejected.
f) He failed to give the Petitioner a proper opportunity to object to any rejection of a ballot paper."

This will be an interesting one to see the outcome which on the allegations has potential to overturn the result and have a re-election. I cannot see the court changing the result, however.

Manningham Ward - Bradford
A petition by Norman Scarth who was a candidate.

"That Norman Scarth was unlawfully arrested and unlawfully imprisoned by West Yorkshire Police to prevent him campaigning for votes. This was on orders from very high up, & it was specifically stated that he was to be detained "until voting had ended". He was then released without charge."

Which seems a curious one, but not one that would be likely to overturn a result unless the result was close.

He has an online commentary here and website here.

The result was
Manningham
Arshad Ali (Res GG) 395
Mohammad Amin (Lab) 2319
Adam Jamal (Con) 246
Mohammed Ishrat Mirza (Lib Dem) 2122
John Edward Robinson (Green) 214
Norman Scarth (Anti-Crime) 66
Maj: 197 LAB GAIN

Much that it may be the case that he shouldn't have been arrested, I would be surprised if the court concluded that it affected whether or not he won or indeed whether Labour beat the Lib Dems - simply because he only got 66 votes.

It looks like Bradford MDC tried to stop the petition. That would also be difficult as he does have an argument even if not a very strong one.

He also stood in the Haltemprice and Howden by-election coming 25th Equal out of 26 candidates with 8 votes.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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…

Service launched to reduce the pain of calling a call centre.

Click here to try the beta test call entre phoning service"John Hemming, who has created an internet Startup called Cirrostratus since he ceased being an MP, is launching a free online service to make life easier for people phoning call centres.   The service is provided by Cirrostratus, but the SIP backbone is provided by the multi-award winning business VoIP solution, Soho66." John said, "Many people find phoning call centres a real pain.  Our service is aiming to make things a lot easier.   One click on alink or the bookmarks list and our server will phone up the call centre and get through all the menus.  This is a lot faster than when people have to phone up and is less irritating." "Additionally the system uses WebRtc and the internet to make the call. This means that people don't find their normal phone system being blocked whilst they hang on the line waiting to speak to a human being." Marketing Manager from Soho66, David McManus, said: &q…

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…