You'll probably find all the detail you need at The National Archives J 104/378:
discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C762443If an election is declared void, then there is a byelection. When the court changes the result without calling another election, it's called an 'undue election'.
Well, an interesting couple of hours at the National Archives today showed a multitude of mishaps at the Chorleywood West ward election in 1991. The following facts surround the contest.
1. The Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Northamptonshire and Oxfordshire (County Boundaries) Order 1991 came into force on 1 April 1991. The Order altered,
inter alia, the county boundary between Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire, with the vast majority of the area concerned (351.77 hectares) and population (1,790 people) transferred to Chorleywood West ward from the Chenies parish of Chiltern District Council.
2. The number of councillors representing Chorleywood West increased from 2 to 3 as a consequence of the above Order.
3. At the May 1991 election 2 councillors were therefore to be elected. The first elected to serve a term of 4 years, the second elected to serve a term of 1 year.
4. The Returning Officer announced the result of the poll of 2 May to be:
Peter J. Kemp (C) 789 - declared elected
Charles F. Downing (C) 769 - declared elected
William B. Cavill (L/Dem) 700
Derek Frankland (L/Dem) 698
Michael J.I. Bird (Lab) 111
Gillian Stone (Lab) 93
5. The total number of ballot papers in the Verification of Ballot Papers Account was 2,251; however, more than 600 ballot papers were inadvertently omitted during the count.
6. After a recount on 10 May 1991, ordered by His Honour Judge Goldstone at Watford County Court, the total number of votes for each candidate was determined to be as follows:
William B. Cavill (L/Dem) 1,023
Peter J. Kemp (C) 1,023
Derek Frankland (L/Dem) 1,018
Charles F. Downing (C) 1,003
Michael J.I. Bird (Lab) 144
Gillian Stone (Lab) 134
A further recount was later ordered and conducted by the Prescribed Officer, Master Topley, on 2 July 1991. It confirmed the figures of the first recount.
7. During the course of the first recount, 10 ballot papers were discovered for the first time that lacked the Official Mark. The votes thereon were excluded from the recount figures, but if they had been included the voting figures would have been:
William B. Cavill (L/Dem) 1,023 + 6 = 1,029
Peter J. Kemp (C) 1,023 + 3 = 1,026
Derek Frankland (L/Dem) 1,018 + 7 = 1,025
Charles F. Downing (C) 1,003 + 4 = 1,007
Michael J.I. Bird (Lab) 144
Gillian Stone (Lab) 134
8. It would appear (I need to re-read images I captured when at the National Archive to check) that the person or persons drawing up the original Order for the boundary change did not consider the (admittedly remote) possibility of an equality of votes between the two elected candidates for the enlarged Chorleywood West ward - this was a vital oversight given that one would need to serve for 4 years and the other for 1 year. The High Court was not empowered to draw lots; it also seemed dubious that the two persons concerned, if they had been declared elected, would have been in a legal position to draw lots at the first available meeting of the Council.
9. During the recount supervised by Master Topley, all rejected ballot papers were re-examined. The agents and counsel for the Conservative candidates drew attention to ballot paper no. 1552 that had been rejected by the Returning Officer. Topley agreed with the Returning Officer's ruling. However, at the final hearing in the Queen's Bench Division, held on 26 July 1991, the two judges ruled that the intention of the voter on ballot paper no. 1552
was clear, and their two votes (ticks*) for Kemp (C) and Stone (Lab) should have been included in the count, which would give us:
Peter J. Kemp (C) 1,024
William B. Cavill (L/Dem) 1,023
Derek Frankland (L/Dem) 1,018
Charles F. Downing (C) 1,003
Michael J.I. Bird (Lab) 144
Gillian Stone (Lab) 135
[* crosses (X's) had been placed against the other four candidates - hence the contention of the Liberal Democrats that the paper should have remained void for uncertainty. This has given rise to what Shaw and Sons Ltd call - in their
Dealing with Doubtful Ballot Papers booklet of April 2001 - the Three Rivers case. Ballot paper examples 32 to 34 in the booklet deal with this very issue.]
10. On 26 July 1991 the two judges of Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice
voided the
whole election. So not only was the election of Downing (C) voided (as in David's list), but that of Kemp (C) as well. The acts and omissions of the Returning Officer's staff - issuing to voters 10 ballot papers without the official mark - had affected the result of the election, especially insofar as who was to be elected for four years and who was to be elected for one year. The more than 600 ballot papers that were initially overlooked were almost incidental to the final outcome of this case: if the recounts had given a clear differentiation between the first and second elected I suspect that we would have had an
undue election with the recounted figures having the final say on the matter.
11. My next task is to find out the result of the by-election (Watford Observer? Three Rivers District Council?). Another source may be the Lib Dem agent at the time, Martin Trevett, who still sits on TRDC as a Chorleywood councillor.
Notice of trial has been given. The petitioner would need to seek leave to withdraw the petition.
