Watkins v Woolas
Reporter: Richard Hooton
Date published: 03 June 2010
OLDHAM is at the centre of a legal battle that could make political history and force a by-election.
Lib-Dem candidate Elwyn Watkins claims Oldham East and Saddleworth Labour MP Phil Woolas made false statements against him that affected the General Election and wants the constituency result declared void. Reporter Richard Hooton explains what the case is all about
ACCUSATIONS of politicians using dirty tricks to smear their opponents are not uncommon.
But there are claims that the closely fought contest in Oldham East and Saddleworth hit a new low in this year’s General Election.
While some may dismiss the claims and denials as the usual political sparring, losing Lib-Dem candidate Elwyn Watkins is adamant his Labour opponent overstepped the mark and broke the law.
He has submitted a petition for a hearing of a rarely-convened election court, based on an alleged breach of Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act.
The law states that people found guilty can be imprisoned and/or fined, disbarred from public office for three or five years and the election result deemed void.
It will see two High Court judges and the Official Recorder of the House of Commons travelling to Oldham to hear evidence over several days, possibly at Oldham Civic Centre and without a jury, within the next couple of months.
If Mr Woolas, the former immigration minister, loses it would be the end of his political career and candidates would then put themselves forward for a by-election. There are limited grounds of appeal.
It would be history in the making as the law has not been used in this way for 100 years — the last case is believed to have been in Ireland in 1911.
The Chronicle understands that if Mr Watkins’s legal bid fails he would give up on politics, disillusioned by his experience.
The election was nail-bitingly close with Mr Woolas beating his rival by 103 votes after a second recount.
But Mr Watkins was furious with Labour’s campaign literature, published, with Mr Woolas’s consent, by his agent Joe Fitzpatrick.
He says it broke the rules governing the conduct of election candidates and campaigns, which state that anyone publishing a false statement of fact about a candidate’s character or conduct is guilty of an illegal practice unless he can show he had reasonable grounds for believing the statement to be true.
Basically, you are not allowed to knowingly lie about your opponents.
Mr Watkins claims the one-off “Examiner” newspaper, an edition of the “Labour Rose”, and a full-colour “Election Communication” leaflet, contained numerous misleading and erroneous claims about himself and his campaign.
But to simplify his case he is focusing on three particular areas. To succeed Mr Watkins has to prove his opponents made the statements — which as they were published in black and white should not be difficult — and that they were false.
Mr Woolas’s defence could be that he believed the statements to be true. He might also argue that he did not make statements of fact but was raising questions of public interest — much of what was published queried Mr Watkins’s funding and political stances rather than explicitly declaring them.
It is reported that the legal bid could cost Mr Watkins as much as £100,000 but the Chronicle understands there is such interest in the case from the legal profession, as it is entering new territory, that he has had offers from lawyers to work for free or at a reduced cost.
The Lib-Dems will soon publish its political accounts and says it will disprove questions over how its campaign was funded. It is believed the figures the Lib-Dems spent on the constituency campaign were around a quarter of the figure Mr Woolas suggested and were well below what is allowed by Electoral Commission.
He is said to be deeply offended by the implication that he “wooed” extremist Muslims and that this does not represent the moderate faith found in Oldham.
Mr Woolas has dismissed the action as “sour grapes” and his opponent as “a bad loser.”
But the Lib-Dems were shocked by the publications and say they were designed to fool and mislead people and cost them valuable votes.
Lib-Dem sources claim Mr Woolas has not realised the seriousness of the case and the draconian punishments that can result.
Bones of contention...
::That an election leaflet claimed that Mr Watkins had reneged on a promise to live in the constituency when he had in fact moved to Delph.
::That a “Labour Rose” leaflet claimed that Mr Watkins was sympathetic to and would represent the views of extremist Muslims who would bring threats of intimidation and violence to constituents, and had refused to condemn death threats against Mr Woolas. Similar claims were allegedly made in the “Examiner” newspaper.
::That the newspaper claimed Mr Watkins spent £200,000+ on producing and posting leaflets and he received political donations to fund this that weren’t declared to the Electoral Commission and that some or all of the money was donated by a Sheikh with the intention of them “buying” the election. Similar claims were allegedly made in a “Labour Rose” leaflet.
There was a similar case in 2007 in East London, although the rules were slightly different as it featured a local election.
Labour councillor Miranda Grell was found guilty under the act of falsely branding Lib-Dem rival Barry Smith.
She was convicted by magistrates of two counts of making false statements about another candidate and fined £1,000, ordered to pay £3,000 costs and forced to vacate her seat, which she had snatched from Mr Smith by 29 votes. A by-election was held and won by a fresh Lib-Dem candidate.
