Ali v Bashir & Anor

An election may be avoided where the successful candidate, personally or through agents, is proved beyond reasonable doubt to have committed corrupt or illegal practices. Proof that the practices affected the result is unnecessary under Representation of the People Act 1983, section 159. A wider case of general corruption under section 164 requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of corrupt or illegal practices directed to procuring a candidate’s election, together with proof on the civil standard that they may reasonably be supposed to have affected the result. Electoral agency is construed broadly. It may include relatives, associates and others knowingly acting to promote a candidate’s election, even without formal appointment or detailed knowledge by the candidate.

The petitioner challenged the election of the first respondent as councillor for the Maybury and Sheerwater Ward of Woking Borough Council on 3 May 2012. The challenge alleged false registrations, personation, false postal-vote applications, harvesting of postal votes and general corruption. The election was decided by 16 votes.

Following scrutiny of electoral documents, the court considered a confined schedule of suspect personal and postal votes. The central issues were whether corrupt or illegal practices had been proved against the first respondent or his agents, whether widespread practices amounted to general corruption, and whether they could reasonably be supposed to have affected the result.

1. Applicable standards. The burden rested on the petitioner. The criminal standard applied to allegations of corrupt or illegal practices and to the existence of general corruption. The civil standard applied to whether general corruption might reasonably be supposed to have affected the result, following R v Rowe, ex parte Mainwaring [1992] 1 WLR 1059 and the court’s earlier ruling in the Slough Election Case.
2. Electoral qualifications and offences. A person voting in a local election had to satisfy the registration, residence, status and age requirements in sections 2, 4 and 5 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Temporary occupants, persons with a home elsewhere and persons not satisfying the qualifying Commonwealth-citizen requirements could not lawfully register or vote. Personation under section 60 included voting personally or by post as another person, including a fictitious person. Section 62A separately covered false postal or proxy applications, misdirected postal communications and conduct intended to obtain an unauthorised vote.
3. Agency. Election-law agency is wider than ordinary agency. It may include canvassers, committees, supporters, relatives, business associates and others connected with the candidate who knowingly act to promote the election. Formal appointment is unnecessary, and the candidate need not know the details of the fraudulent acts. On the facts, the first respondent’s close relatives and associates who arranged false registrations and votes were his agents.
4. Individual findings. The evidence at numerous properties, including 4 Orchard Close, 8 Kilrush Terrace, 133A and 135A Princess Road, 19 Bassett Road, 19 Kent Road, 129B Devonshire Avenue, 59 Courtenay Road, 89 Courtenay Road and 93A Courtenay Road, established false registrations, invalid votes, personation and postal-vote fraud beyond reasonable doubt. Other allegations were not proved to the requisite standard and were not relied upon.
5. General corruption. The corrupt practices were sufficiently widespread to constitute general corruption under section 164. The number of fraudulent votes proved to have been cast for the first respondent exceeded his majority of 16 votes. It followed, on the civil standard, that the practices might reasonably be supposed to have affected the result.
6. Disposition. The court certified that the first respondent was guilty, personally and by his agents, of corrupt practices under sections 60 and 62A and illegal practices under section 13D(1), section 61(1)(a), section 65(1) and Schedule 4 paragraph 8 to the Representation of the People Act 2000. His election was avoided under section 159(1) and section 164(1)(a). He was declared incapable of being elected to fill the vacancy under section 164(1)(b).

The judgment records that the original proceedings were procedurally inappropriate but were directed to stand as an election petition by order dated 27 July 2012. No appeal from the present decision is stated.