Mabbutt (On His Own Behalf And On Behalf of the Conservative Party)

Relief under regulation 108 is directed to the applicant’s own act or omission and good faith. It is not defeated by another person’s conduct or bad faith where the applicant otherwise satisfies the statutory conditions. The court must be satisfied that the breach arose from inadvertence or a comparable reasonable cause, without want of good faith, and that the required notice was given. Even then, relief remains discretionary and depends on whether it is just in all the circumstances. An order relieves the applicant from the regulatory consequences of the excused act or omission; it does not immunise other persons who may have committed separate offences.

The claimant, the Conservative Party’s national election agent and nominating officer, applied under regulation 108 of the European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 2004. Election leaflets distributed in the West Midlands lacked the printer and promoter details required by regulation 74 because an incorrect version had been printed and distributed by a subcontractor.

The application was initially considered by Master Leslie, who directed service on the Director of Public Prosecutions and relevant electoral and party officers. At the hearing, the claimant pursued relief only on his own behalf. The central issues were whether the omission resulted from inadvertence or a comparable reasonable cause without want of good faith, whether notice requirements were met, and whether relief should be granted.

1. Relief granted. The claimant was granted an order under regulation 108(3), providing an authorised excuse for the printing errors and relieving him from liability and regulatory consequences arising from them. There was no order as to costs.
2. Regulation 108(3)(a) was satisfied because, without relief, the claimant’s omission to ensure that the required details appeared on the leaflet would constitute an illegal practice.
3. For regulation 108(3)(b), the relevant inquiry focuses on the applicant’s act or omission and the applicant’s good faith. The evidence established inadvertence or a reasonable cause of like nature, and no want of good faith. The provision should not be read so that the applicant is denied relief because of another person’s conduct or bad faith.
4. The order protects the applicant from the consequences of the excused act or omission. It does not affect the printers, who could theoretically remain liable for the separate offence under regulation 74(7), subject to prosecutorial decisions.
5. The notice requirement in regulation 108(3)(c) was satisfied. Notice to the Director of Public Prosecutions was mandatory under regulation 108(2), and the additional notice directed by Master Leslie was sufficient. Notice to every individual candidate on the party lists would have been disproportionate.
6. Although satisfaction of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) leaves a discretion, the claimant had acted reasonably promptly. The large number of defective leaflets was material, but the size of the electorate and the other circumstances made it just to grant relief.

This was a first-instance application in the High Court. The judgment records that Master Leslie directed service of the proceedings before they were issued, but no earlier judicial decision on the merits is stated.