|
|
Post by belvoir on Apr 2, 2020 10:18:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 2, 2020 12:41:15 GMT
I think the 20 March hearing happened, and that's why the petition has been reported now - but it wasn't the trial, just a procedural hearing. |
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by ColinJ on Apr 2, 2020 13:36:28 GMT
I agree. The petition is woefully short of "facts", and without agreed facts there can be no 'Special Case'. It (the petition) is all a bit "he said, she said, he saw, she saw", and lacks a "magic bullet". I have my doubts it can succeed. |
|
|
|
Post by robert1 on Apr 2, 2020 13:57:12 GMT
Agree completely with David B earlier. The idea that, on any occasion, agents (or others) had been able to handle bundles of votes is unbelievable.
|
|
peter
Conservative
Posts: 47 
|
Post by peter on Apr 26, 2020 15:10:34 GMT
On the eve of the hearing, Brent council officers revealed that the seals on the stored ballot papers for Barnhill ward had been "broken." Apparently this was not the case for either Alperton or Wembley Central wards. The Court was duly concerned and has ordered a full recount. I understand that there will be the opportunity for candidates to inspect papers. The Chief Executive and Returning Officer has been ordered to provide statement under oath as to how the seals were broken with the Judge reserving the right to take further action including setting aside the results. The actual court submissions and the judgment will be very interesting reading.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 1, 2020 17:20:18 GMT
Yes, we have a petition arising from the 2019 general election. It's in East Ham constituency and is from Kamran Malik, who was the unsuccessful 'Communities United Party' candidate. I completely missed this at the time. Did anything come of it? (Malik was the only candidate in East Ham who did not submit his election expenses - according to the notice he was his own agent. The only one to fail to do so in West Ham was his wife.) |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 1, 2020 17:31:17 GMT
I am pretty sure it was tossed out by the election court; Kamran Malik is a frivolous litigant.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 1, 2020 17:43:46 GMT
I thought one of the problems in the election court set up is that the courts can't easily swat aside the frivolous cases? There was both the West Central assembly case and a Hackney council ward that kept on going because the petitioner was utterly determined.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jul 18, 2020 9:05:00 GMT
On the eve of the hearing, Brent council officers revealed that the seals on the stored ballot papers for Barnhill ward had been "broken." Apparently this was not the case for either Alperton or Wembley Central wards. The Court was duly concerned and has ordered a full recount. I understand that there will be the opportunity for candidates to inspect papers. The Chief Executive and Returning Officer has been ordered to provide statement under oath as to how the seals were broken with the Judge reserving the right to take further action including setting aside the results. The actual court submissions and the judgment will be very interesting reading. I understand from a Twitter correspondent that the recount took place on Thursday and Friday this week at the High Court. We await the Senior Master's report. |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Jul 20, 2020 23:55:03 GMT
I understand from a Twitter correspondent that the recount took place on Thursday and Friday this week at the High Court. We await the Senior Master's report. Any estimate timescale for the report to be published? |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,468
|
Post by peterl on Jul 21, 2020 12:22:37 GMT
Out of interest, does anyone know what the procedures are for a court supervised recount? Does the judge effectively take the role of returning officer and manage the process? Who actually does the counting, court staff or council staff?
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 21, 2020 12:31:42 GMT
Out of interest, does anyone know what the procedures are for a court supervised recount? Does the judge effectively take the role of returning officer and manage the process? Who actually does the counting, court staff or council staff? Paging Davıd Boothroyd |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 21, 2020 12:54:09 GMT
The procedural arrangements for carrying out the recount are handled by a High Court Master though I think they normally get in staff from the council to help. The outcome of the recount must be reported back to the court for a decision on the election petition.
In this case the issue with the seals may be a matter for further argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Aug 24, 2020 13:44:46 GMT
There was a listing in the Royal Courts of Justice daily cause list for today seemingly relating to Plymouth Sutton and Devonport
ELECTION PETITION RELIEF APPLICATION
(By telephone conference.)
L1/2020 Pollard and Fearon
Any idea what that could be?
(Fearon is presumably John Fearon, Luke Pollard’s election agent).
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 24, 2020 13:57:24 GMT
There was a listing in the Royal Courts of Justice daily cause list for today seemingly relating to Plymouth Sutton and Devonport ELECTION PETITION RELIEF APPLICATION (By telephone conference.) L1/2020 Pollard and Fearon Any idea what that could be? That will be relief for inadvertent overspending, or for an accidentally inaccurate return of expenses. Application by Luke Pollard (candidate) and John Michael Fearon (agent). |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Aug 25, 2020 11:29:56 GMT
It is now over 5 weeks since the recount of the Barnhill ward of Brent Council was undertaken at the High Court on 16 / 17 July following the election petition received on 04 February relating to the by-election on 23 January 2020. As far as I can see there has yet to be a judgement and no indication in the public domain as to when one can be expected. Guidance notes indicates that a judgement will take "weeks" from, in this case, the recount.
Earlier in this thread there are details of 6 successful election petitions for principal local authorities in the last 10 years:
3 relate to miscounting of the ballots:
- Waltham Forest LB, High Street, 06 May 2010 - 3 seats originally all Labour
1,000 additional votes had been added to each of the 3 Labour candidates. A Liberal Democrat was now elected in place of the third Labour candidate.
- Broxtowe BC, Eastwood North & Greasley, 05 May 2011 - 2 seats originally 1 Labour, 1 Liberal Democrat
Votes for the husband and wife Liberal Democrat team had been transposed during tallying. Husband now elected instead of wife.
- Denbighshire UA, Prestatyn North, 03 May 2012 - 3 seats originally 2 Labour, 1 Conservative
Votes for the third Labour candidate originally given to a Conservative with a similar but not identical surname. Labour given the third seat.
3 relate to other matters:
- Woking BC, Maybury & Shearwater, 03 May 2012 - election void due to Liberal Democrat registration fraud
- Tower Hamlets LB, Mayor, 22 May 2014 - election of Lutfur Rahman (Tower Hamlets First) void for a variety of reasons
- Bournemouth UA, Kinson South, 07 May 2015 - election of 1 UKIP upheld but 2 Conservatives void as ballot papers unavailable when poll opened.
The 3 upheld petitions have similarities to the Brent, Barnhill case although none had the added complication of the bag containing the ballot papers initially being misplaced and, when found, was unsealed. The election petition requests a recount but this was before the problems with the bag were disclosed.
I have attempted without success to find official details about the timescales from the recounts to the judgement. There are however "partisan" contemporaneous accounts for two of them which give the information.
The Waltham Forest, High Street recount took place on Friday 30 July 2010 with the amended result declared on or around Wednesday 08 September. This was some 40 calendar days - a similar time to what has now elapsed since the Brent, Barnhill recount and as well the same time of year.
A recount for Denbighshire, Prestatyn North was approved by the High Court on or around 27 July 2012. I have been unable to find when the recount took place but it was reported to be "3 months later", ie October 2012. The revised result was declared on 23 January 2013, some 3 months after the recount had been undertaken. Using this timescale we still have some time to await the result of the Brent, Barnhill recount.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Aug 25, 2020 13:00:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Aug 31, 2020 10:04:28 GMT
[quote author=" andrewteale " source="/post/987356/thread" timestamp="1598360446" I suspect that had it not been for lockdown the Barnhill case could have been sorted by now.[/quote] I am not too sure that is actually the case. The hard-work would more than likely have been undertaken by the 17 / 18 July when the recount was undertaken. My reading of the regulations is that a local government petition is overseen by an "experienced" barrister. Irrespective of the precise legalities of the petition, given the seal had been broken, common sense suggests the first task should be to confirm the integrity of the ballot papers, ensuring all that had been printed could be accounted for (including postal votes issued but not returned) and ascertain whether there was any evidence the contents of the bag had been tampered with. Providing all was OK, the count of 2,715 ballot papers / 5,042 votes for two councillors at Barnhill would not be significantly more onerous than the 15,137 votes for 3 candidates in Waltham Forest: High Street or 1,883 ballot papers / 4,822 votes for three councillors in Denbighshire: Prestatyn North. If the there were to be evidence the integrity of the ballot papers had been compromised that is another issue and one where public interest must surely come to the fore. It is now over 6 weeks since the Barnhill recount took place with the result still awaited. This is already slightly longer than the time from recount to result of the High Street petition in 2010, at the same time of year, but less than the 12 weeks (or more like 10 weeks ignoring the Christmas / New Year) for the Prestatyn North result to be announced. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Aug 31, 2020 11:49:13 GMT
I suspect that had it not been for lockdown the Barnhill case could have been sorted by now. I am not too sure that is actually the case. The hard-work would more than likely have been undertaken by the 17 / 18 July when the recount was undertaken. My reading of the regulations is that a local government petition is overseen by an "experienced" barrister. Irrespective of the precise legalities of the petition, given the seal had been broken, common sense suggests the first task should be to confirm the integrity of the ballot papers, ensuring all that had been printed could be accounted for (including postal votes issued but not returned) and ascertain whether there was any evidence the contents of the bag had been tampered with. Providing all was OK, the count of 2,715 ballot papers / 5,042 votes for two councillors at Barnhill would not be significantly more onerous than the 15,137 votes for 3 candidates in Waltham Forest: High Street or 1,883 ballot papers / 4,822 votes for three councillors in Denbighshire: Prestatyn North. If the there were to be evidence the integrity of the ballot papers had been compromised that is another issue and one where public interest must surely come to the fore. It is now over 6 weeks since the Barnhill recount took place with the result still awaited. This is already slightly longer than the time from recount to result of the High Street petition in 2010, at the same time of year, but less than the 12 weeks (or more like 10 weeks ignoring the Christmas / New Year) for the Prestatyn North result to be announced. The work involved in the recount is what it is, I agree. But in a non-pandemic world it should reasonably have been possible to schedule the recount for April or May, which might (depending on what was found) have permitted the trial to be held before the courts broke up for the summer holidays. |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Sept 12, 2020 12:16:55 GMT
Another week and no apparent indication when the report on the Brent: Barnhill election petition will be announced. A milestone was passed this week as the 8th September came and went without a result announced in that the 2010 Waltham Forest: High Street petition saw the recount undertaken on 30 July (compared to the 16 / 17 July for Brent: Barnhill) and the revised result announced on the 8th September. It is now 8 weeks since the recount was undertaken although there are still up to 4 weeks before the time exceeds that for the Denbighshire: Prestatyn North revised 2012 result.
If the integrity of the ballot papers were found to be have been maintained, following the bag being unsealed, then either:
* the announced result is confirmed, although there needs to be disciplinary action with regards the reported condition of the ballot paper bag, or
* the result is overturned, in which case the Returning Officer / CEO needs to consider their position if the local newspaper reports are correct.
However, if the integrity of the ballot papers have been compromised then surely a criminal investigation will be required.
In any case the procedure is far too long and needs to be streamlined. Does this fall within the remit of the Electoral Commission?
|
|
