Analysis: Woolas loses election court challenge, court clarifies constitutional role

3 December 2010 by

R (on the application of Philip James Woolas) and The Parliamentary Election Court [2010] EWHC 3169 (Admin) – Read judgment / press summary

Phil Woolas has lost his appeal by way of judicial review of the decision to strip him of his election victory in Oldham East and Saddleworth in the 2010 General Election. He has said he will not appeal the decision.

Mr Woolas had to first convince the Administrative Court, which handles judicial reviews of the decisions of public bodies, that it had jurisdiction to hear the claim. He won on this point. However, once it had accepted it could hear the case, the Administrative court went on to uphold most of the decision of the Election Court.

Election Courts are a somewhat obscure 1868 invention of Parliament. The are made up of High Court judges and rule from time to time on whether election candidates are guilty of illegal practice.

One fascinating aspect is that the judiciary initially didn’t want the job at all. A letter was sent from the Lord Chief Justice to the Lord Chancellor, who feared  that public confidence in the judiciary would

speedily be destroyed, if, after the heat and excitement of a contested election, a Judge is to proceed to the scene of recent conflict, while men’s passions are still roused, and, in the midst of eager and violent partisans, is to go into all the details of electioneering practices, and to decide on questions of general or individual corruption, not unfrequently supported or resisted by evidence of the most questionable character.

In this case, the question arising the “scene of recent conflict” was whether Woolas had made or published “any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct”.

On 5 November 2010 the Election Court held that Woolas had in fact acted unlawfully by making statements in relation to the personal character or conduct of his opponent Mr Watkins which amounted to an illegal practice (see our previous post for the full background). His victory was declared void. The last time an election court declared an election void was 99 years ago.

Mr Woolas strongly disputed the findings of fact, but he accepted there is no right of appeal or other means of challenging those findings. He applied to the Administrative Court to challenge the interpretation that the Election Court had given to the relevant statutory provision (section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983) contending that on a proper interpretation none of the statements was in relation to the personal character or conduct of Mr Watkins.

Woolas’s judicial review application was initially rejected by Mr Justice Silber, who ruled that the judges convened as an election court were acting in their capacity as High Court judges, and therefore not amenable to attack by way of judicial review. That application has now been reheard by a panel of three judges, Lord Justice Thomas, Mr Justice Tugendhat and Mrs Justice Nicola Davies DBE.

First issue – can you review an election court decision?

On the first issue, the court disagreed with Mr Justice Silber, and ruled that a decision of the election court could indeed be judicially reviewed. This might represent a departure from the longstanding principle that a High Court judge cannot be judicially reviewed, although given the unusual circumstances it probably will have little or effect on future decisions in relation to judicially reviewing High Court decisions.

The court accepted that there was a need for finality in challenges to election decisions “for not only must the electors have a representative in Parliament, but in times where majorities are small, the absence of a Member can be significant” (para 46). However, just because a judgment of an election court is final and binding – it cannot be appealed – this does not mean it cannot be challenged if it is reached on the basis of a wrong interpretation of the law:

Although it is plain that Parliament intended that a lawful decision of the election court must be final in all respects, we do not consider that Parliament intended to provide that a decision that had been made on a wrong interpretation of the law cannot be challenged. An express provision to that effect would have been required. (para 47)

In other words, “final” need not necessarily mean final if, on occasion, that would lead to injustice.

The court also examined the constitutional relationship between the High Court, the election court and the Hose of Commons. It accepted that the election court has “very limited jurisdiction” (para 32) but also that Parliament probably intended that the High Court was available to mop up any mistakes of law made by it. This was clear, said the court, from the terms of s.12 of the 1868 Act and s.144(4) of the 1983 Act (para 51). Moreover:

This is entirely consistent with the constitutional principle derived from the separation of powers and the rule of law that it is for the courts to determine the meaning of the law enacted by Parliament… Review by the courts of an issue of law arising out of a determination of an election court, in our judgment, far from being in any way inconsistent with the constitutional relationship between Parliament and the High Court, is what Parliament plainly regarded as entirely appropriate, as the rule of law requires interpretation of the law by the ordinary courts. (para 52)

The court went on to decide that it had wide powers to review any error made by an election court. And this review would be subject to appeal in the Court of Appeal if permission was granted.

Second issue – did the election court get it wrong?

Having decided that it had the jurisdiction to hear the case – an initial victory for Woolas – the court went on to uphold most of the election court’s original decision.

It disagreed with the election court’s decision that a false statement can at the same time relate both to a candidate’s public and personal character (para 109). The central focus of the original legislation was to prevent candidates impugning the personal character of their opponents. This may relate, for example, to his “family, religion, sexual conduct, business or finances” (para 112).

However, a statement about a political position “can go beyond being a statement about his political position and become a statement about the personal character or conduct of a candidate” (para 114). This is clearly a difficult and potentially slippery definition, but one which Parliament has decided that the courts should examine in light of particular facts and allegations.

With this in mind, the court ultimately upheld two of the three findings of unlawful behaviour by the election court. The finding it rejected related to the statement that Mr Watkins had reneged on a promise in respect of a political position in Choose magazine. The statement in Choose, ruled the court, was not a statement in relation to the personal character or conduct of Mr Watkins. Although it was a statement that implied he was untrustworthy, it was a statement in respect of his political position.

However, the statements in The Saddleworth and Oldham Examiner and Labour Rose went beyond being statements in relation to Mr Watkins’ political position as to wooing extremist voters, to being a statement in relation to his personal character in that he was a man who condoned extreme violence.

As such, the court upheld the election court’s decision. Even if it had rejected two out of the three findings of unlawful behaviour by Woolas, this would still have been enough to strip him of his election victory. One would have been enough.

Human rights to freedom of expression

In respect of human rights, the court accepted that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to freedom of speech) mandates a strict approach to such cases involving s.106 (para 89 onwards):

It is necessary to consider how, taking these decisions into account, an election court should determine whether a statement relates to the candidate’s personal character or conduct. The determination involves no discretion, but it does require judgment, which might be referred to as a value judgment. It is in the carrying out of this judgment that the court could, and in our judgment should, give effect to its obligation to have regard to the Article 10 rights of the maker or publisher of hte statement (and the other Convention rights which must be balanced with or against it). (para 103)

The court’s reasoning is quite difficult to follow, and may leave open the potential to appeal. However, its conclusion on human rights was clearer, and is difficult to dispute. It held that the right to freedom of expression “does not extend to the publishing, before or during an election, of a statement that is made dishonestly” (para 106). What matters in respect of freedom of expression is not whether the statement was about a person’s personal or political character, but rather whether the statement was dishonest. Section 106 is more limited than even this – its  scope only extends to false statements made in relation to personal character or conduct – but the fact remains that lies are not subject to human rights protections.

Comment – not all bad for Mr Woolas

Although Mr Woolas will be disappointed that his election victory is still void, he did succeed in getting his case heard in the first place. This seems like the right decision. It is of great importance that election court decisions are taken quickly, and are final in most cases. However, it would be surprising if they were never open to review by any court, even if a judge made a gross error of law in coming to his decision. This would go against the basic principles of the justice system and is surely too harsh even when decisions need to be quick.

The administrative courts are used to making decisions which can have huge effects on the operation of public bodies, and to that end applications must be made within three months, as opposed to the 6 years a claimant has to bring a claim in most civil disputes. They are generally dealt with fairly speedily, although this can vary depending on the workload of the courts. But decisions are still subject to appeal, and this means that errors of law – but only errors of law – can be examined and corrected if necessary. In respect of speed, it is to be expected that any decision of an election court will be given top priority and therefore dealt with quickly.

An effect of the administrative court’s decision is that since Mr Woolas has been accepted into the ordinary judicial review system, rather than being trapped in the odd single-shot election court system as Mr Justice Silber had initially ruled, this means that he has the chance to appeal. If he chooses to (which may be unlikely given his comments following the decision) and is granted permission, given the urgency this may be a candidate to be ‘leapfrogged’ straight to the Supreme Court. So the decision may still be reversed, although given the unattractive and somewhat seedy factual circumstances surrounding the election brochures and adverts, he may well be unsuccessful again.

This case has provided the courts with another chance to make constitutional observations about its own role in the separation of powers system, following the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the parliamentary expenses case. This is interesting for lawyers but more importantly serves to shine a light on a formerly obscure but essential part of the constitutional system.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more:

4 comments


  1. Alex says:

    “The court’s reasoning is quite difficult to follow, and may leave open the potential to appeal. However, its conclusion on human rights was clearer, and is difficult to dispute. It held that the right to freedom of expression “does not extend to the publishing, before or during an election, of a statement that is made dishonestly” (para 106). What matters in respect of freedom of expression is not whether the statement was about a person’s personal or political character, but rather whether the statement was dishonest. Section 106 is more limited than even this – its scope only extends to false statements made in relation to personal character or conduct – but the fact remains that lies are not subject to human rights protections.”

    I don’t see how this can be right. Sure, human rights law shouldn’t protect Woolas from being held responsible for his comments (e.g. defamation law), but it’s surely another matter entirely to say that there can be no human rights protection from being forced from his seat and barred from Parliament for a number of years?

  2. ObiterJ says:

    Interesting isn’t it. I hope that we have “moved on” since the days when the L.C. wrote such a letter. I think that most politicians accept that it is fairer for a parliamentary election court to hear such cases.

    Of course there will be some who will support the line that Mr Woolas was making a political statement and not attacking the character of his opponent.

    It’s not quite in the Bush v Gore league – 10 years ago (believe it or not). Now there was a SCOTUS decision which probably did change history.

  3. Adam Wagner says:

    CharonQC – I imagine we will! But as you say, judges are only doing what Parliament expressly asked them to do. See para 22 – 25 of the judgment on the history of the 1868 act.

    One fascinating aspect is that the judiciary initially didn’t want the job at all. This letter was sent from the Lord Chief Justice to the Lord Chancellor, regarding the confidence the public has in the judiciary:

    “This confidence will speedily be destroyed, if, after the heat and excitement of a contested election, a Judge is to proceed to the scene of recent conflict, while men’s passions are still roused, and, in the midst of eager and violent partisans, is to go into all the details of electioneering practices, and to decide on questions of general or individual corruption, not unfrequently supported or resisted by evidence of the most questionable character. The decision of the Judge given under such circumstances will too often fail to secure the respect which judicial decisions command on other occasions. Angry and excited partisans will not be unlikely to question the motives which have led to the judgment. Their sentiments may be echoed by the press. Such is the influence of party conflict, that it is apt to inspire distrust and dislike of whatever interferes with party objects and party triumphs.”

    I have added this bit of legal history to the post

  4. charonqc says:

    This is an excellent post – and a fascinating issue.

    Hopefully we won’t have too much more nonsense from politician and political bloggers about ‘unelected judges’ undermining democracy?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology birds directive blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity circumcision citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Cologne Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal records Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty declaration of incompatibility defamation DEFRA Democracy village Dennis Gill dentist's registration fees deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention devolution Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy director of public prosecutions disability Disability-related harassment disciplinary hearing disclosure Discrimination Discrimination law disease divorce DNA doctors does it matter? domestic violence Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell Doogan and Wood double conviction DPP guidelines drones duty of care ECHR economic and social rights economic loss ECtHR Education election Employment Environment environmental information Equality Act Equality Act 2010 ethics Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice european disability forum European Sanctions Blog Eurozone euthanasia evidence Exclusion extra-jurisdictional reach of ECHR extra-territoriality extradition extradition act extradition procedures extradition review extraordinary rendition Facebook Facebook contempt facial recognition fair procedures Fair Trial faith courts fake news Family family courts family law family legal aid Family life fatal accidents act Fertility fertility treatment FGM fisheries fishing rights foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Association Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech free speech game birds gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict Gender General Dental Council General Election General Medical Council genetic discrimination genetic engineering genetic information genetics genetic testing Google government Grenfell grooming Gun Control gwyneth paltrow gypsies habitats habitats protection Halsbury's Law Exchange hammerton v uk happy new year harassment Hardeep Singh Haringey Council Harkins and Edwards Health healthcare health insurance Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII herd immunity hereditary disorder High Court of Justiciary Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust homelessness Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy hooding Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefits Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim Hrant Dink HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/04/11/us-state-department-reports-on-uk-human-rights/ Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights news Human Rights Watch human right to education human trafficking hunting Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Igor Sutyagin illegality defence immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity increase of sanction India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee inherent jurisdiction inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insult insurance insurmountable obstacles intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interests of the child interim remedies international international conflict international criminal court international humanitarian law international human rights international human rights law international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internment internship inuit investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran iranian bank sanctions Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland irrationality islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeet Singh Jefferies Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK Ken Clarke Ken Pease Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College Klimas koran burning Labour Lady Hale lansley NHS reforms LASPO Law Commission Law Pod UK Law Society Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid desert Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberty libraries closure library closures Libya licence conditions licence to shoot life insurance life sentence life support limestone pavements limitation lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome london borough of merton London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Sumption Lord Taylor LSC tender luftur rahman machine learning MAGA Magna Carta mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2068 (QB) Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical liability medical negligence medical qualifications medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental Health Courts Mental illness merits review MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis Milly Dowler Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder murder reform Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience Newcastle university news News of the World new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden Oxford University paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parking spaces parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole board passive smoking pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution personal data Personal Injury personality rights perversity Peter and Hazelmary Bull PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning human rights planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope Pope's visit Pope Benedict portal possession proceedings power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting prison numbers Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate raptors rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance swine flu Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine unfair consultation universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vaccination vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: