Williams v Patrick & Ors

An election petition succeeds only where the statutory conditions for invalidity are met. The election must have been conducted otherwise than substantially in accordance with election law, and the relevant act or omission must have affected the result. The statutory rules governing local government elections are self-contained. A requirement appearing only in the Parliamentary Rules cannot be implied into local government elections where the applicable local election rules contain no equivalent provision. An overnight adjournment of a local government count is not inherently unlawful or insecure, provided suitable security arrangements are made. Allegations of irregularity require evidence; an unsupported allegation does not establish a breach or affect the election result.

Vernon Williams, an unsuccessful independent candidate, challenged the local government election for the King’s Park Ward of the London Borough of Hackney. Sharon Patrick, Tom Rahilly and Rebecca Rennison were the successful candidates, and Tim Shields was the Returning Officer.

The petition alleged breaches concerning the timing of the count, overnight storage of ballot boxes, election information and materials, absent-voter instructions, and the provision of pencils at polling stations. The central legal issue was whether rule 45(3A) of the Parliamentary Rules, requiring counting to begin within four hours of the close of poll, applied to the local government election.

1. Petition dismissed. The court determined and declared that the first respondents were duly elected and directed that the determination be certified to the High Court under section 145 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
2. Section 48(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 required consideration of whether the election was conducted substantially in accordance with election law and whether any act or omission affected the result. Both conditions had to be satisfied. The result meant the success of one candidate over another, rather than the precise number of votes recorded.
3. The local government election rules made under section 36 were self-contained. Rule 45(3A) of the Parliamentary Rules applied only to parliamentary election counts. It was not incorporated into local government elections by section 36(2), because the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 contained no equivalent provision. It would be untenable to impose a statutory duty by implication from a rule appearing only in the Parliamentary Rules.
4. There was no legal presumption that overnight storage of ballot boxes involved interference or tampering. The evidence showed that the boxes remained sealed, the count centre was secured and guarded, and the premises and seals were intact when reopened. The storage arrangements were suitable and secure.
5. The allegations concerning information, materials, absent-voter instructions and pencils were unsupported. Pencils were materials enabling voters to mark ballot papers, as contemplated by rule 26(4) of the 2006 Rules. No act, omission or breach of duty by the Returning Officer or his staff was established. In any event, the substantial difference in votes meant that no alleged irregularity could reasonably have affected the result.

First-instance decision of the Election Court. The judgment records earlier procedural directions and an unsuccessful attempt by the petitioner to obtain permission to appeal, but no appellate decision is stated.