Muhammed Afzal v Ayoub Khan & Ors

An election petition is not merely a private dispute. The election court must consider the public interest and may investigate alleged corrupt or illegal practices in its inquisitorial capacity. Permission to withdraw is not required solely to prevent collusion.

The court must nevertheless balance that public interest against proportionality, court resources, delay and costs. Withdrawal may be permitted where the allegations are abandoned, the evidence substantially vindicates the respondents, and any criminal investigation or prosecution provides a more appropriate route for further action.

The petitioner challenged the Aston Ward local government election, alleging that the respondents had made false allegations that he was bribing voters with packets of dates. After receiving the respondents’ evidence, including video footage and evidence of widespread distribution of dates bearing Labour Party stickers, the petitioner accepted the evidence, withdrew his allegations and applied for permission to withdraw the petition under section 147 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.

The First Respondent consented. The Second Respondent opposed withdrawal, arguing that the court should investigate the alleged election malpractice and possible misconduct by non-parties. The central issue was whether the petition should proceed in the public interest or be withdrawn having regard to the available evidence, alternative criminal processes and the costs and delay of a full trial.

1. Permission to withdraw. The application was granted. An election petition is an inquiry into the conduct of an election in the public interest, and the court has an inquisitorial duty where appropriate to investigate allegations of corrupt or illegal practice. The court rejected the submission that the only purpose of permission under section 147 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 was to prevent improper collusion.
2. The public interest did not require a full trial in the circumstances. The petitioner had withdrawn all allegations, accepted the respondents’ evidence and no longer sought to challenge it. The evidence provided overwhelming support for the conclusion that he and his supporters had distributed packets of dates bearing Labour Party stickers on a widespread basis. A formal finding after trial would serve no practical purpose, particularly because the petitioner was 78 and would not stand for election again.
3. The court balanced its inquisitorial role against the overriding objective, court resources, delay and substantial additional costs that would result from adjourning the trial to allow non-parties to obtain representation. The Greene v Forbes decision, [2020] EWHC 676 (QB), confirmed the public importance of election petitions while recognising that withdrawal may be proper.
4. Further investigation remained possible through the Director of Public Prosecutions’ statutory duty under section 181(1), referral to the police, and contempt proceedings under Rule 23.14 and Part 81 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Non-parties could not be reported personally guilty without notice and an opportunity to be heard, as reflected in section 160(1) and the reminder in Khan v The Election Commissioner, [2005] EWHC 2365 (Admin).
5. The petitioner was liable for the respondents’ costs under section 147(4). Indemnity costs were awarded up to and including 6 January 2023, with standard basis costs thereafter. Detailed assessment was ordered, and interim costs of £10,000 were awarded to each of the First and Second Respondents.

not stated in the judgment.