Court hearing 'inevitable' in Oldham East and Saddleworth election challenge
So now we know for sure that the general election is not over in Oldham East and Saddleworth.
As readers of my previous post will know, the Liberal Democrat candidate, Elwyn Watkins, is challenging the outcome in the courts.
The Lib Dems failed to take the seat from Labour by just 103 votes.
Mr Watkins blames Labour for putting out a small newspaper which he considers libellous.
Under the 1983 Representation of the People Act, anyone involved in an election campaign who "makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate's personal character or conduct" has committed an offence.
Labour sources were initially suggesting that a court hearing was unlikely. The party now accepts it is inevitable.
This is pretty extraordinary stuff. The last time an election result was challenged on the basis of corrupt practices was back in 1911. It was successful.
Everyone is feeling their way through these rarely-charted political waters. High Court judges must now decide how to proceed.
As many as four High Court judges, sitting as an Election Court, could come to the constituency to take evidence. This is likely to be in September at the earliest.
Elwyn Watkins must prove the allegations were made and that they were false.
Phil Woolas, in turn, must either prove the allegations were correct, or that he had reasonable grounds for believing them.
Both sides are keeping their arguments to themselves for now, but playing for high stakes.
If Mr Woolas loses, which still seems unlikely, then he would be guilty of a criminal offence and would be banned from standing for office.
If Elwyn Watkins wins he has another chance of being elected. But more significantly he would have changed the way future political campaigns are run.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~32~RS~)
If you're interested in political issues in the North West, this could be the blog for you. I'm Arif Ansari the BBC's political editor in the region, covering controversy from Cheshire to South Cumbria.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Interesting piece. However, I have two questions:
1) What makes you say that Mr Woolas is "still unlikely" to lose? You said above that Watkins just had to prove that the allegations were false. Do you have evidence of the Liberal's fraud, illegal donations and money laundering? Or is it just journalese that should be removed from your piece?
2) Are the rumours that are circulating the blogosphere true - you know, the ones about Woolas' agent's son being your producer / camerman / otherwise associated?
Complain about this comment
C'mon Arif - we're dying to know the inside gossip here....
Complain about this comment
No, it wasn't journalese. The Lib Dems themselves openly accept that this is not an easy case to win. As I tried to explain this would set an historic precedent.
Yes, Mr Watkins has to prove the allegations are false. But Mr Woolas must try to prove that he had reasonable grounds for believing his allegations to be true. I don't know precisely what Labour will argue. But I can assure you that experienced lawyers will battle very hard over this, and it is the Lib Dems who are challenging and therefore have the more difficult job.
In terms of Mr Woolas's agent's son ... he is not my producer or cameraman and does not work for me. He works for BBC Radio Manchester. Lots of BBC staff may be connected to various people in different ways but it does not affect their ability to do a job in an impartial way.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS