Electoral offences

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Here's some information about election offences reported to the Met in London: www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s61443/Appendix%204%20-%20DMPC%20response%20re%20Role%20of%20MOPAC-MPS%20in%20Tackling%20Electoral%20Fraud.pdf

(Written up in the Standard today)

[peterl]

Interesting. Here is one point of note

(Referring to the Tower Hamlets Mayoral Election Petition)

"The procedural rules for this hearing allowed witnesses to provide hearsay and opinion evidence. Under the procedural rules within criminal proceedings such evidence is not allowed to be relied upon."

While I am familiar with the rules governing hearsay in criminal cases, I was not aware that, although using the criminal standard of proof, the hearsay rules in election petitions are different. This has implications for the interplay between a petition and any subsequent criminal proceedings.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

It should be remembered that the rules for election petition trials were largely set in 1868 and have been unaltered since then. The general principle is that the function of the court is to detect and verify electoral malpractice, so hearsay evidence is admitted. Witnesses who admit to being involved electoral malpractice can get a certificate from the court excusing them from any criminal consequences, if the court is satisfied that they have honestly and fully declared what they know.

Election courts are primarily about finding malpractice not attributing blame. Someone who is reported guilty of an offence is not found guilty and does not have a criminal conviction.