Advertisement
Date set for election challenge
Date published: 22 July 2010
A date has been set in Oldham for a rare legal bid to force a fresh election over allegedly misleading campaign material.
Defeated Liberal-Democrat Elwyn Watkins wants a re-run of the contest which resulted in former minister Phil Woolas retaining the Oldham East and Saddleworth seat by 103 votes after two recounts in May.
Mr Watkins claims the result was swayed by attacks on him in Labour leaflets over foreign donations, support from Muslim extremists and vote-fixing.
Labour has said it would “robustly defend” the case which is brought under a rarely–used piece of electoral law. The last case was in Ireland in 1911.
Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act (1983) makes it an offence for anyone to publish “any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct” in a bid to prevent them being elected “unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true”.
Mr Watkins said that two publications contained “numerous misleading and erroneous claims regarding my personal character and reputation, and that of my campaign”.
Yesterday, Mr Justice Griffith Williams set the timetable for an election court, which will sit in the Oldham constituency for five days from September 13.
The judge, sitting at London’s High Court, said: “It seems to me that it must be resolved before Parliament reassembles.”
If Mr Woolas, the former immigration minister loses, he could be disbarred from politics for up to five years.
The election result would be deemed void and the other candidates would put themselves forward for a by-election.
Comments
Sore loser springs to mind, perhaps Mr Watkins did not get enough votes because he knows nothing of the area or the people. I hope the expense of this excercise does not come out of our pockets!!!!!
Old lady
Elwyn, you can't spend money on a court case like this or on the flood of leaflets and newspapers that came through our doors before the last elections without people asking questions about where it came from - grow up.
I hope Watkins isn't getting Legal Aid.
So, go on then, Red Delpher, ask the question. Or rather you can make a snide accusation and then put a question mark at the end. Mr Woolas has never been slow to threaten litigation in the past, he and his supporters can hardly complain when the boot is on the other foot.
I don't support any political party Steven Acres - a plague on all their houses.
I didn't mention a political party. And I know that you're Independent. But you've said before that people shouldn't complain about what's said in election campaigns. Is that really your stance? Do you believe that anything goes when it comes to garnering votes?
Everybody seems to look at this case through the prism of whether they like Woolas or Watkins. That's not what this is about. I hope Watkins wins not because I support him but I think Woolas' literature was deplorable.
Yes of course people should complain - Phil Woolas produced some awful leaflets - he should be told it puts people off supporting him. I don't like the idea of cash determining everything so those with the deepest pockets win. Elections should be about policies and ideas.
And I really don't like the idea of the law getting involved in the electoral process like this.
I doubt if anyone with the faintest interest in politics is happy about this, Red Delpher. However, the law is involved, as it should be. There are rules that govern all aspects of an election - that they are rarely used does not mean that they should be ignored. Quite the opposite.
I agree that it shouldn't be that the winner is the one with the deepest pockets, but it's Woolas that has been featured on Channel 4 suggesting that he stretched the rules to avoid breaking the spending limit.
Have Your Say
cannot believe the £36000 that watkins spent on this failed election bid campaign.
no wonder he's trying this route!
epic fail!
By fedupoldhamer @ 22/07/2010 12:54:51