Finch & Anor v Richardson

Ignorance of electoral law may amount to inadvertence for the purposes of relief from an illegal practice under the Representation of the People Act 1983. The question is one of fact, assessed with the statutory requirement of good faith. A person’s professional or electoral experience does not establish a rule that ignorance of the law cannot qualify. Nor is it necessary to characterise the degree of carelessness once the court is satisfied that the act or omission was inadvertent and made in good faith.

The claimants sought relief under sections 86 and 167 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 concerning an aldermanic election. Election expenses included the value of services supplied free of charge by the first claimant’s employer, but those expenses were omitted from the return and declarations. The claimants accepted that the omissions constituted illegal practices, but contended that they resulted from inadvertence and were made without want of good faith. The defendant opposed relief, principally arguing that ignorance of the law could not amount to inadvertence, particularly for experienced professionals.

1. The court granted the claimants relief from the consequences of the excess election expenditure and the errors or false statements in the election-expense return and declarations.

2. The services of the first claimant’s employer’s driver and car fell within section 90C of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Their value therefore had to be treated as election expenses incurred by the candidate and declared. The claimants’ calculations established that the statutory limit was exceeded and that the return and declarations were inaccurate.

3. The central issue was whether the omissions arose from inadvertence and without want of good faith. The court accepted the reasoning of Kelly LJ in McCrory v Hendron [1993] NI QBD 177, and held that ignorance of the law may constitute inadvertence in this statutory context. The word may cover a range extending from human error and negligence to ignorance of the law.

4. The guidance in Smith and Sloane v MacKenzie (1919) SC 546, concerning the relevance of the applicant’s professional or electoral experience, was treated as guidance on the facts rather than as a principle that ignorance of the law cannot amount to inadvertence. The contrary submission based on Borough of Walsall Case (1892) 4 O'M. & H.123 was rejected.

5. On the evidence, both claimants had acted inadvertently and without want of good faith. Their experience and the degree of carelessness did not alter that conclusion. There was no reason to think that the first claimant would have abandoned the distribution of the election material had he understood the law; he could have arranged for it to be carried out without charge.

6. The court made no order for costs. The defendant’s intervention had not assisted in disposing of the matter, and the submissions opposing relief were rejected.

First-instance decision. The judgment records an earlier procedural hearing before Lloyd Jones and King JJ on 28 October 2008, when the defendant was joined and directions were given.