Statements were untrue
Date published: 08 November 2010
FORMER Immigration Minister Phil Woolas made statements he knew were untrue about his opponent in leaflets published just days before the General Election.
There was silence as two judges delivered the historic decision at a packed Saddleworth Civic Hall.
Mr Justice Nigel Teare and Mr Justice Griffith Williams has heard evidence at a specially convened election court in September — the first in 99 years.
They returned to give their decision on Friday and found that Mr Woolas was “guilty of an illegal practice” under election law in relation to three allegations.
His election as an MP for Oldham East as Saddleworth was declared void.
Reading a three summary of decision Justice Teare said: “The alleged false statements of fact were published in three election addresses sent to voters shortly before the election.
“The subject matter of the election addresses of which complaint is made involved where the petitioner (Mr Watkins) lived, his attitude to Muslim extremists who advocated violence and his election expenses.
“These election addresses were drafted by members of the respondent’s (Mr Woolas’s) election team. The respondent made suggestions as to what should and should not be in the addresses and approved them in their final form.
“He accepted responsibility for them but denied that the election addresses evidenced any illegal practice.”
Justice Teare continued: “In our judgement, to say that a person has sought the electoral support of persons who advocate extreme violence,in particular to his political opponent,clearly attacks his personal character or conduct.
“It suggests that he is willing to condone threats of violence in pursuit of personal advantage.
“Having considered the evidence which was adduced in court we are sure that these statements were untrue. We are also sure that the respondent had no reasonable grounds for believing them to be true and did not believe them to be true.”
Commenting on the claim in a leaflet that Mr Watkins had reneged on a promise to live in the constituency, Justice Teare added: “It suggests that he is untrustworthy. The statement was false and the respondent had no reasonable ground for believing it to be true and did not believe it to be true.”
Mr Woolas was not found guilty of an illegal practice in two other areas.
He had claimed that his Mr Watkin’s estimated election campaign costs were in excess of £200,000.
Justice Teare said: “That statement, that an estimate had been made, was true in that it appears to have been made by a member of his election team, notwithstanding that it is unclear how the estimate was reached.”
Mr Woolas also said that Mr Watkins had broken the law by spending more than he should on his campaign, and that the money had come from an Arab donor
“Those statements were untrue but we are not sure that the respondent lacked reasonable grounds for believing them to be true,” explained Justice Teare.
He concluded: “We are satisfied that the statutory penalties for the illegal practices committed by the respondent are both necessary and proportionate, having regard to the seriousness of the statements made with regard to the petitioner ’s alleged attitude to Muslim extremists who advocated violence.”
The full judgement is available at www.judiciary.gov.uk
