|
|
Post by middleenglander on Sept 26, 2020 16:25:48 GMT
Another two weeks have passed by and apparently still no further news on the Brent: Barnhill election petition. It is now ten weeks since the recount on 16 / 17 July and this is rapidly approaching the 12 weeks, including the Christmas period, between the recount and announcing the result for the Denbighshire: Prestatyn North election petition in 2012.
I can do no better than quote Chris Game, of the Institute of Local Government Studies at Birmingham University, who wrote in 2013 an article headed Prestatyn's election force and the busted petition process.
It started:
Remember the 2000 US Presidential election, the seemingly endless Florida recounts, and how we mocked an electoral system that took 35 days to produce a winner? Well, it's now over 8 times as long - 287 days and counting - since last May's Welsh local elections. Yet, with a tad less riding on the result, one of the winning candidates in Denbighshire County Council's Prestatyn North ward has still to take his seat. And if that doesn't signify a busted system, utterly unfit for purpose, it's hard to imagine what might.
He later goes on:
Here's where the trouble starts and where fundamental reform is decades overdue. A robust procedure for challenging the result, whether on the grounds of innocent administrative error or deliberate fraudulent practice, is a vital part of any sound electoral system. It should have the attributes of ARTESSA, being accessible, rational, transparent, efficient, straightforward, swift and affordable. Our petition procedure today, little changed from that set out in the 1868 Parliamentary Elections Act to deal with bribery, treating, personation, undue influence and other corrupt practices, is none of these, as Prestatyn North's hapless Paul Penlington is still discovering the hard way.
before commenting:
Prestatyn North may just be a quirky contemporary footnote, but it does illustrate one key aspect of the problem. The petition procedure was designed to deal with 19th Century corrupt practices in parliamentary elections. Its requirement today is to deal with 21st Century corrupt practices, and more frequently with innocent errors and administrative misjudgements, in local government elections for which it is hopelessly ill equipped.
and then adding:
The Law Commission has embarked on a comprehensive review of electoral law, aimed ambitiously at collating and reforming the existing morass of primary and secondary legislation into something more coherent, and conceivably even a single modular UK Electoral Act. It is still in its early stages, and its members may hope that when they eventually reach "Challenging the election results" they'll be almost there. The sorry saga of Prestatyn should remind them they won't be.
It should be noted that the current Brent: Barnhill saga is only 247 days since the election, compared to some 287 for Prestatyn North, although the process is still ongoing. What started as a potential innocent error or administrative misjudgment now has a possibility of a corrupt practice if the ballot papers had been tampered with. Furthermore, it appears the procedure remains unchanged from earlier times despite over seven years since the article suggested the Law Commission review. All in all a sorry tale which surely brings little credit to the relevant parties involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Oct 11, 2020 9:59:31 GMT
A further two weeks have come and gone and still no apparent indication within the public domain as to when there will be a judgement on the Brent: Barnhill election petition. It is now 12 weeks since the recount on 16 / 17 July and almost 9 months since the disputed election on 23 January 2020. This length of time is double that of the Waltham Forest: High Street petition in 2010 (over the same time of year) and similar to the Denbighshire: Prestatyn North petition in 2012 (including the Christmas period).
There appears to be 4 legal outcomes to an election petition:
1. The election is declared void, with the result quashed and a writ issued for a new election.
2. The election is declared undue, with the original result quashed and another candidate(s) declared to have been elected.
3. The election is upheld, with the member(s) returned found to have been duly elected.
4. The petition is withdrawn, presumingly by the petitioners.
I can see no evidence that 4 has occurred. If 3 were to be the outcome, then why a delay unless there is some serious issue arising from the bag being "lost" and the seal not intact. In which case, is there a question over the integrity of the ballot papers to be counted which would in itself make outcome 3 somewhat difficult to justify. If 2 were the outcome then 1 or 2 people are sitting on the Council when they have not been duly elected whilst others duly elected have been prevented from taking their place. If 1 were to be the outcome then can the court issue a writ in the current circumstances whilst 1 or 2 people are sitting on the Council when they have not been duly elected?
On the other hand, the wheels of justice may be grinding exceedingly slow for what ever reason. But this re-emphasises the description of a busted election petition system made in 2012. I have also noted that the Philip Rutman case, presumingly of constructive dismissal, will not be heard by a tribunal until September 2021, more than 18 months after his resignation, and is scheduled to last 10 days. I think the Judiciary in many respects needs to get its backside in gear and sort out many of its procedures in order to speed up the administration of justice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 11, 2020 10:26:50 GMT
The blame for delays in court hearings on all types of trials belongs fairly and squarely with the present Government who have starved the court system of funds. I don't think anyone involved with the system denies that.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnhemming on Oct 11, 2020 10:28:55 GMT
The blame for delays in court hearings on all types of trials belongs fairly and squarely with the present Government who have starved the court system of funds. I don't think anyone involved with the system denies that. I don't think the virus can be ignored. Much that remote hearings have been happening things have been held back. |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Oct 11, 2020 11:30:38 GMT
The blame for delays in court hearings on all types of trials belongs fairly and squarely with the present Government who have starved the court system of funds. I don't think anyone involved with the system denies that. I don't think the virus can be ignored. Much that remote hearings have been happening things have been held back. As I posted on 31 August, the hard work of the election petition was completed on 16 / 17 July when the recount was undertaken. I accept Covid may have had some impact on the time from when the petition was submitted to the recount but it may well have been the problem with the sack containing the ballot papers had a greater impact. However once the recount had been undertaken it is a relatively straight forward matter to write up the report and arrange for it to be reported on. It would appear that the whole election petition procedure is flawed and the Law Commission / Electoral Commission having had approaching eight years to consider the matter have failed to come up with a solution. That is a real problem and one which should not be brushed under the carpet. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 11, 2020 12:01:39 GMT
The Law Commission is only there to advise on changes to the law; it's for the Government to actually legislate. The Law Commission's report on Electoral Law was finalised only in March and does have a good series of recommendations which would make the process more straightforward. (https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2020/03/6.6339_LC_Electoral-Law_Report_FINAL_120320_WEB.pdf)
|
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Oct 11, 2020 12:52:09 GMT
The Law Commission is only there to advise on changes to the law; it's for the Government to actually legislate. The Law Commission's report on Electoral Law was finalised only in March and does have a good series of recommendations which would make the process more straightforward. (https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2020/03/6.6339_LC_Electoral-Law_Report_FINAL_120320_WEB.pdf) So it took at least seven years of investigation and consultation in order to report on 17 March 2020. I have quickly read the above report and can find little in the analysis of election petitions that was not mentioned by Chris Games back in 2013. It may be that the extraordinary situation of the bag containing the ballot papers for the Brent: Barnhill by-election having been "lost" and the seal was missing when found after the election petition had been lodged has thrown a wobbly which the judicial system finds hard to handle. But in real life such situations have to be dealt with on a regular basis. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Oct 11, 2020 13:13:44 GMT
The Law Commission is only there to advise on changes to the law; it's for the Government to actually legislate. The Law Commission's report on Electoral Law was finalised only in March and does have a good series of recommendations which would make the process more straightforward. (https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2020/03/6.6339_LC_Electoral-Law_Report_FINAL_120320_WEB.pdf) So it took at least seven years of investigation and consultation in order to report on 17 March 2020. I have quickly read the above report and can find little in the analysis of election petitions that was not mentioned by Chris Games back in 2013. It may be that the extraordinary situation of the bag containing the ballot papers for the Brent: Barnhill by-election having been "lost" and the seal was missing when found after the election petition had been lodged has thrown a wobbly which the judicial system finds hard to handle. But in real life such situations have to be dealt with on a regular basis. The Law Commission's original plan was for a brand-new Representation of the People Act to restate electoral law in one document (something that's badly needed) with substantial improvements (which are also badly needed). By the time they had decided what the improvements should be the Brexit referendum had happened and there was no longer any parliamentary time for that. The result is a rather sad final report which was clearly a complete waste of time because the government are going to ignore it. |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Oct 11, 2020 13:27:10 GMT
So it took at least seven years of investigation and consultation in order to report on 17 March 2020. I have quickly read the above report and can find little in the analysis of election petitions that was not mentioned by Chris Games back in 2013. It may be that the extraordinary situation of the bag containing the ballot papers for the Brent: Barnhill by-election having been "lost" and the seal was missing when found after the election petition had been lodged has thrown a wobbly which the judicial system finds hard to handle. But in real life such situations have to be dealt with on a regular basis. The Law Commission's original plan was for a brand-new Representation of the People Act to restate electoral law in one document (something that's badly needed) with substantial improvements (which are also badly needed). By the time they had decided what the improvements should be the Brexit referendum had happened and there was no longer any parliamentary time for that. The result is a rather sad final report which was clearly a complete waste of time because the government are going to ignore it. The report was commissioned in December 2012, an interim report in 2016 (same year as EU Referendum) and a final report issued on 17 March 2020 - as Covid-19 was getting into its stride. There were specific exclusions at the beginning - franchise, electoral systems, boundaries - so the contentious stuff was not part of the investigation but mainly the nuts and bolts mechanics. Where did you get your idea it was destined for the long grass? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 11, 2020 13:58:26 GMT
There are electoral changes which HMG are committed to - the hugely controversial photoID requirements. So possibly the 2021-22 Parliamentary session will include a Bill about the electoral system.
|
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by ColinJ on Oct 12, 2020 7:51:58 GMT
The delay to the Barnhill judgment is regrettable but not entirely unexpected.
When I researched the Chorleywood West election petition - which included a detailed recount by the courts - it was clear that the count was not conducted by the judges; there were counting personnel supplied by the High Court but with representatives of the local authority and candidates present. I guess the reason that nothing has 'leaked' regarding the Barnhill count must be fear of contempt of court.
Could another possible reason for the delay in settling the matter be a lack of urgency because nothing earth-shattering was found?
|
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Oct 12, 2020 8:51:54 GMT
The delay to the Barnhill judgment is regrettable but not entirely unexpected. When I researched the Chorleywood West election petition - which included a detailed recount by the courts - it was clear that the count was not conducted by the judges; there were counting personnel supplied by the High Court but with representatives of the local authority and candidates present. I guess the reason that nothing has 'leaked' regarding the Barnhill count must be fear of contempt of court. Could another possible reason for the delay in settling the matter be a lack of urgency because nothing earth-shattering was found? It takes longer to add up a set of bad figures than it does good figures. |
|
|
|
Post by robert1 on Oct 12, 2020 12:42:10 GMT
There are electoral changes which HMG are committed to - the hugely controversial photo ID requirements. So possibly the 2021-22 Parliamentary session will include a Bill about the electoral system. I think that is a fairly safe bet. 'Hugely controversial'?-given that the Labour Party uses them for many party memberships/meetings. When I noticed a posting on this page, I, probably like others, hoped that we would finally have the outcome of the Barnhill petition. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 12, 2020 13:10:28 GMT
Oh do come off it. They are hugely controversial and you're not denying it.
You don't need photo ID to get into a Labour Party meeting. Some meetings do need you to prove your identity with your membership card (which doesn't have a photo on it). And if someone does get into a Labour Party selection meeting using another person's card, they are not committing a criminal offence and not liable to imprisonment for two years, or a fine, or both (if convicted on indictment) or imprisonment for up to six months, or a fine up to the statutory maximum, or to both (on summary conviction).
|
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,664 
Member is Online
|
Post by pl on Oct 12, 2020 13:24:05 GMT
Oh do come off it. They are hugely controversial and you're not denying it. You don't need photo ID to get into a Labour Party meeting. Some meetings do need you to prove your identity with your membership card (which doesn't have a photo on it). And if someone does get into a Labour Party selection meeting using another person's card, they are not committing a criminal offence and not liable to imprisonment for two years, or a fine, or both (if convicted on indictment) or imprisonment for up to six months, or a fine up to the statutory maximum, or to both (on summary conviction). What's so controversial about rolling out a system used in Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK? In Northern Ireland you can use: - A UK, Irish or EEA driving licence (photographic part) (provisional accepted)
- A UK, Irish or EU passport (note: EU passports are not accepted at UK Parliamentary elections)
- An Electoral Identity Card
- A Translink Senior SmartPass
- A Translink 60+ SmartPass
- A Translink War Disabled SmartPass
- A Translink Blind Person’s SmartPass
Seems eminently reasonable. And Davıd Boothroyd we all know Labour makes photo ID a requirement in the areas more, ahem, prone to fraud. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 12, 2020 14:03:50 GMT
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,877
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 12, 2020 14:16:24 GMT
But stops the harvesting votes of illegals, as it should. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Oct 12, 2020 14:35:22 GMT
But stops the Democrats harvesting votes of illegals, as it should. I think you are on the wrong side of the pond, young sir. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,877
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 12, 2020 15:07:39 GMT
But stops the Democrats harvesting votes of illegals, as it should. I think you are on the wrong side of the pond, young sir. Corrected by removing the pesky word Democrats. Still true on both sides of the pond. Progressives like to redress the balance, or right wrongs, or as we would term it ......CHEAT! |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,755
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Oct 12, 2020 16:04:14 GMT
There are electoral changes which HMG are committed to - the hugely controversial photo ID requirements. So possibly the 2021-22 Parliamentary session will include a Bill about the electoral system. I think that is a fairly safe bet. 'Hugely controversial'?-given that the Labour Party uses them for many party memberships/meetings. The difference is that Random Joe Public is highly likely to be an elector with the right to vote. Random J. Public is highly *un*likely to be a Labour Party member with the right to vote in a party meeting. |
|
