|
|
Post by Strontium Dog on Feb 8, 2023 16:18:20 GMT
Providing false statements was a serious offence when it was Chris Huhne. Funny, that.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,299 
|
Post by maxque on Feb 8, 2023 16:23:44 GMT
Providing false statements was a serious offence when it was Chris Huhne. Funny, that. The fact heavy costs will most likely be awarded against him however makes it way less likely, as he would have already be punished in some way (it also acts as a deterrent). |
|
|
|
Post by johnhemming on Feb 8, 2023 17:14:02 GMT
The fact heavy costs will most likely be awarded against him however makes it way less likely, as he would have already be punished in some way (it also acts as a deterrent). True. However, there are five people who could be considered to be subject to a Section 160 enquiry and a further number (It may be 3) who also did false statements. Whilst I am at it I will link to my tweet of a few days ago. |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Feb 8, 2023 17:42:31 GMT
Providing false statements was a serious offence when it was Chris Huhne. Funny, that. The fact heavy costs will most likely be awarded against him however makes it way less likely, as he would have already be punished in some way (it also acts as a deterrent). Why should it? The only reason there are any costs at all is because he took legal action against his opponents. There ought to be not only costs awarded against him but punitive ones. |
|
|
|
Post by johnhemming on Feb 8, 2023 17:46:13 GMT
There ought to be not only costs awarded against him but punitive ones. One would expect indemnity costs. However, those are only really whatever costs are incurred and although more expensive, not actually a punishment. Indemnity costs are often around 50%ish more than taxed costs. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 8, 2023 19:22:53 GMT
Given the likely costs order, and the high degree of deterrent publicity, together with the very low level of the crime (small boxes of dates), I doubt the public interest test for a prosecution would be met. Not perjury or vexacious litigation, then? Vexatious litigation has to be persistent. The offence that he could be charged with would presumably be contempt of court? I'd be very surprised if he wasn't charged. |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Feb 8, 2023 19:46:08 GMT
Not perjury or vexacious litigation, then? Vexatious litigation has to be persistent. The offence that he could be charged with would presumably be contempt of court? I'd be very surprised if he wasn't charged. Point taken about this being a one-off rather than a pattern. It just feels as though some action should be taken as he launched this case knowing it to be a lie. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 8, 2023 19:52:26 GMT
Vexatious litigation has to be persistent. The offence that he could be charged with would presumably be contempt of court? I'd be very surprised if he wasn't charged. Point taken about this being a one-off rather than a pattern. It just feels as though some action should be taken as he launched this case knowing it to be a lie. As I said, i'd be very surprised if he wasn't charged and he certainly should be in my view. Not least because not to do so might encourage others to attempt the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 24, 2023 19:02:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 27, 2024 21:42:48 GMT
The first one of your list (1973) was David Simpson, not David White. Now corrected. bump Because everybody keeps talking about David White all of a sudden |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 6, 2024 13:23:13 GMT
An interesting story from Harrogate: www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clww9l5ryppoThis is presumably a rare case of a police inquiry under s. 106 (5) of the 1983 Act: "Any person who, before or during an election, knowingly publishes a false statement of a candidate’s withdrawal at the election for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of another candidate shall be guilty of an illegal practice." |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jun 6, 2024 13:31:50 GMT
An interesting story from Harrogate: www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clww9l5ryppoThis is presumably a rare case of a police inquiry under s. 106 (5) of the 1983 Act: "Any person who, before or during an election, knowingly publishes a false statement of a candidate’s withdrawal at the election for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of another candidate shall be guilty of an illegal practice." I love the explanation - a “printing mistake”. It’s similar to the common “computer error”. In both cases a human has made a mistake (or done something deliberately) but it’s blamed instead on a machine or process. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyhil on Jun 6, 2024 16:49:21 GMT
As I printer I don't 'love the explanation'!
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 12, 2024 11:57:59 GMT
Just to note that there is no sign of any election petition arising from the 2024 round of local elections.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 3, 2024 9:08:58 GMT
The Times is suggesting that if Badenoch's majority is in the low thousands, then the number of postal votes not sent out in her seat could trigger an election petition and the resulting by-election could mean she's ineligible when the next Conservative leadership election is held.
Obviously that all rests on a bunch of hypotheticals, but is the timing even plausible? How soon could an election petition be granted and what is the likelihood that the timing of any new election would postdate the next Conservative leadership election?
|
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Jul 3, 2024 9:13:12 GMT
Just to add a bit of context to the above, this isn't due to problems with Royal Mail it's the local council:
my emphasis
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyhil on Aug 5, 2024 19:48:43 GMT
I did some photocopying today for someone who is intending to challenge the result of a constituency election last month on the grounds that the winning candidate's home address was not in the constituency as was claimed but elsewhere in the country. He has a recently rented flat in the constituency and is on the register for both that address and his family home. I suspect that this is a pointless challenge, but it would seem to turn on the meaning of 'home address' in the RPA 1983, and I wonder if there is any case law on the subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 5, 2024 22:10:36 GMT
An election petition must be lodged within 21 calendar days of the return, except where it is over the expenses returns which don't get opened to inspection until six weeks after the polling day. Almost all results were declared on 5 July so the deadline for lodging an election petition was 26 July. The courts have almost never given relief for election petitions that were even one day late.
The issue of home address has come up in some local government election petitions*, including the Brent case from 1974 (Ereira v Sheppard), the Medina Ryde East case from 1979 (Lynas v Robinson and others), and the Dartford South West case from 1985 (Gillhan v Tall). But there isn't really case law because the law itself is fairly clear and the only problems with how it applies are only down to the facts of the case.
*All of thse include the additional element that the address affected eligibility for election, which does not come up in Parliamentary elections.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Aug 18, 2024 12:37:17 GMT
I assume there is no case law about the "Address in [CONSTITUENCY/COUNCIL AREA]" option? I have noticed a number of messes with this over the years including non-existent constituency names, out of date constituency names, confusion about whether "electoral area" means the ward, district or even PCC area, and even some cases where the candidate/their agent appears to not know which constituency an address is in. That's even before you get to the confusion this year with the Electoral Commission form notes offering umpteen different options as to what could be put. |
|
