Woolas, R (on the application of) v The Speaker of the House of Commons

A parliamentary election court is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction and is amenable to judicial review for errors of law, although its findings of fact are final. The statutory procedure for stating a special case does not exclude judicial review, but failure to use it will ordinarily weigh heavily against permission.

Under section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, a statement must be characterised as relating either to a candidate’s personal character or conduct or to the candidate’s political position, character or conduct. It cannot be both. Political criticism remains outside the provision merely because it may imply that a candidate is untrustworthy. A statement which alleges that a candidate condones or refuses to condemn extreme violence may, however, cross the line into personal character. Article 10 requires a strict and context-sensitive construction, particularly because negligent false statements may attract criminal liability.

The claimant had been returned as Member of Parliament for Oldham East and Saddleworth. The First Interested Party presented an election petition alleging that the claimant had committed illegal practices under section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 by publishing false statements about him.

The Election Court found three statements to be false statements of fact relating to the candidate’s personal character or conduct. It declared the election void and reported the claimant’s illegal practice to the Speaker: [2010] EWHC 2702 (QB). Permission for judicial review was refused by a single judge and renewed before the Divisional Court. The issues were whether the Election Court’s determination was reviewable for error of law and whether it had applied the correct test under section 106.

1. Judicial review. The parliamentary election court has a specific and limited jurisdiction under the Representation of the People Act 1983. Although it consists of High Court judges and is a court of record, they act as a tribunal of limited jurisdiction, not as High Court judges exercising the High Court’s unlimited jurisdiction. The provision for stating a special case shows that Parliament did not intend the election court to be the final arbiter of questions of law. It follows that the election court is amenable to judicial review for error of law, as well as for excess of jurisdiction.
2. The finality of the certificate under section 144 concerns the status of the election and the matters determined on the petition. It does not prevent correction of a determination reached on a wrong interpretation of the law. Ordinarily, failure to request a special case under section 146(4) would provide strong grounds for refusing judicial review. Permission was exceptionally granted because an important point of law had not been properly appreciated at the hearing.
3. Construction of section 106. The court had to distinguish between a false statement relating to personal character or conduct and one relating to political position, character or conduct. The statement must be placed in one category; it cannot be both. Political criticism is not brought within section 106 merely because it casts an adverse implication on personal trustworthiness. An allegation of corruption or personal dishonesty may nevertheless concern personal character even where it arises from public or political office.
4. Section 106 imposes criminal liability for specified false statements made negligently as well as dishonestly. That penal consequence requires a careful and certain construction. Article 10 must be taken into account when deciding whether a statement concerns personal character or conduct. Dishonest statements receive no protection under Article 10. For honestly but negligently made statements, the seriousness and substance of the personal attack are relevant to the statutory classification.
5. The statement that the candidate had reneged on a promise to live in the constituency concerned his political position, not his personal character or conduct, notwithstanding its implication that he was untrustworthy. The Election Court had therefore applied the wrong test in relation to that statement. By contrast, allegations that the candidate sought the support of persons advocating extreme violence, and refused to condemn threats of violence, alleged personal condonation of criminal conduct and fell within section 106.
6. The claimant was granted permission and one finding was set aside. The certificate and report were nevertheless upheld because the two remaining findings of illegal practice were unaffected. The election remained void and the statutory consequences followed.

1. Election Court: found three false statements to be illegal practices, declared the election void and reported the claimant to the Speaker: [2010] EWHC 2702 (QB).
2. High Court (Administrative Court): granted permission for judicial review, set aside one finding, but upheld the certificate and report because two findings remained valid.