Edgell v Glover & Anor

Under section 48(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, an election must be declared invalid where the court is satisfied on the evidence that an official error affected the result, even though further investigation might reveal a countervailing error. The court must assess the evidence as a whole. The words “it appears” impose no particular standard of proof, although a preponderance of evidence must support the conclusion that the result was affected. Further inspection is discretionary and need not be ordered where its likely value is limited and remote. The court left unresolved whether a cross constitutes a duly signed and authenticated declaration of identity.

The petitioner challenged the election of the first respondent in an all-postal local government election, where the first respondent had secured a majority of one vote. Inspection established that one counted ballot paper was unsupported by a declaration of identity. It also disclosed two unsigned declarations and six declarations bearing a cross in the signature box.

The petitioner and first respondent sought determination by special case. The returning officer sought further inspection to establish whether the additional irregularities might have neutralised the known invalid vote. The issues were whether section 48(1) required further investigation before invalidating the election, and whether declarations bearing crosses were valid.

1. The election was declared invalid. Ballot paper 2965, counted for the first respondent, was unsupported by a declaration of identity and was therefore invalid. Without the other disclosed irregularities, the candidates would have been tied and the statutory procedure for equality of votes would have applied.
2. Section 48(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 requires substantial compliance with electoral law and that the relevant act or omission did not affect the result. Both conditions must be satisfied. The court must determine whether the result was affected on the evidence before it.
3. The words “it appears” require the court to make up its mind on the evidence as a whole. They do not prescribe a particular standard of proof. Given the consequences of invalidating an election, a preponderance of evidence must support the conclusion that the result was affected.
4. A remote possibility that further investigation might produce a different outcome did not require further inspection. The court had to weigh the likely value, uncertainty, delay and expense of the proposed inquiry. It was not required to order an investigation merely because it was physically possible.
5. The court did not decide whether a cross amounted to a signature or authentication under rules 39 and 85 of the North Lincolnshire District Council (Electoral Pilot Scheme) (No. 2) Order 2003. That issue was unnecessary to the result.
6. David Clarke J agreed with the judgment and outcome.

First-instance decision. Earlier procedural orders by Jackson J. and Mackay J. are recorded, but no appellate decision is stated.