Graham Harry Moore v Sarah Joanne Pochin MP & Anor

An election may be declared invalid where there is substantial non-compliance with electoral law, or where an official breach or irregularity affected the result. Allegations of fraud in an election petition are proved on the civil balance of probabilities; the seriousness and inherent improbability of the allegation affect the weight required, not the applicable standard. The statutory scheme is exhaustive, and the Election Court has no residual power to invalidate an election for matters outside the conduct of the election or beyond the returning officer’s responsibility.

The petitioner, a candidate in the Runcorn and Helsby parliamentary by-election held on 1 May 2025, challenged the result and sought a full recount. He alleged a fraudulent or erroneous count, improper bundling of ballot papers, failures by Royal Mail and Cheshire Constabulary, and breaches of constitutional and human rights protections.

The petition proceeded against the successful candidate and the returning officer following earlier procedural decisions. The central issues were whether the count was fraudulent or erroneous, whether the recount was a full recount, and whether any act or omission breached official duties and affected the result.

1. Statutory framework. The Election Court applied sections 23(3), 120(1), 140, 144(1), 154 and 157(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, together with Schedule 1. The scheme is exhaustive. The High Court has no residual discretion to override it.
2. Validity of the election. Following Morgan v Simpson, an election may be invalid where it was conducted with substantial non-compliance with electoral law, or where a breach or irregularity affected the result. The court found no breach of official duty and held that the election was substantially conducted in accordance with the law.
3. Standard of proof. Allegations of fraud remained subject to the civil balance of probabilities. The court considered inherent probabilities and the need for cogent evidence when assessing serious allegations, but rejected any heightened standard of proof.
4. Count and recount. The evidence of the deputy returning officer, corroborated by video evidence, established that votes were counted in the described stages, were not bundled in groups of 50, and were not physically consolidated in the manner alleged. The court found that the recount checked individual ballot papers and was a full recount. The alleged fraudulent or erroneous count was not proved.
5. Other grounds. Section 91 of the Act conferred an entitlement to send election communications free of postage, not an entitlement to delivery, and supplied no electoral remedy for non-delivery. Alleged police conduct fell outside the Election Court’s jurisdiction and, in any event, lacked a sufficient connection with the result. The constitutional and human-rights challenges were parasitic upon the unsuccessful substantive grounds.
6. Disposition and costs. The petition was dismissed. The successful candidate was duly returned and elected, and the election was not void. The petitioner was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs, summarily assessed at £45,000 for the returning officer and £30,000 including VAT for the successful candidate.

The judgment records earlier procedural decisions in the same litigation:

• Divisional Court — [2025] EWHC 2320 (KB): certain respondents were removed and the petition was permitted to proceed against the successful candidate and returning officer.
• Court of Appeal — [2025] EWCA Civ 1378 at [85]: affirmed aspects of the Divisional Court’s decision and directed that the petition proceed to trial.
• Election Court, High Court — [2025] EWHC 3012 (KB): petition dismissed and election upheld.