Grieve v Douglas-Home
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 December 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 34. |
| Date | 23 December 1964 |
| Court | Election Petitions Court |
ELECTION COURT.
Lord Migdale. Lord Kilbrandon.
Election Law—Conduct of elections—Expenses—Corrupt and illegal practices—Party political broadcasts on television—Party leader appearing in broadcast seen in own constituency—Whether aiding and abetting television authorities to incur expense with view to promoting own election—"With a view to"—Representation of the People Act, 1949 (12, 13 and 14 Geo. VI, cap. 68), sec. 63 (1), (2) and (5).
The Representation of the People Act, 1949, enacts by sec. 63:—"(1) No expenses shall, with a view to promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at an election, be incurred by any person other than the candidate, his election agent and persons authorised in writing by the election agent on account … (c) of … presenting to the electors the candidate or his views or the extent or nature of his backing …" Sec. 63 further provides by subsec. (2) that a return shall be made by the person incurring them of all expenses which require to be authorised by the election agent; and by subsec. (5) that any person who aids or abets any other person to incur expenses in contravention of sec. 63 shall be guilty of a corrupt practice, and that a person who fails to make a return required by the section shall be guilty of an illegal practice.
At the general election held in October 1964 Sir Alec Douglas-Home, then Leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister, was elected Member of Parliament for the constituency of Kinross and West Perthshire. During the election campaign the British Broadcasting Corporation presented on television a series of party political broadcasts on behalf of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Parties. These were relayed by the Independent Television Authority and seen throughout the United Kingdom. Sir Alec appeared in two of these broadcasts, in which he urged the cause of the Conservative Party and solicited votes for its candidates. The expenses incurred in connection with these two broadcasts and three similar broadcasts on behalf of the Conservative Party in which he did not appear were not authorised in writing by his election agent, nor were they included in any statutory return of election expenses. An unsuccessful candidate for the constituency presented a petition to have Sir Alec's election declared void, on the ground that he had been guilty of corrupt and illegal practices, in that he had failed to comply with the requirements of sec. 63 of the 1949 Act, and, in particular, that he had aided and abetted the television authorities to incur expense on account of presenting himself and his views and the extent and nature of his backing to the electors, with a view to promoting or procuring his election, and that no return of these expenses had been made.
Held that the broadcasts in question had been made by the television authorities with a view, not to promoting or procuring Sir Alec's election, but to providing information to the public on a matter of national importance; and that accordingly no offence against sec. 63 had been committed either by them or by Sir Alec; and the petitiondismissed.
(Sequel to case reported supra, p. 313.)
Christopher Murray Grieve, of Brownsbank Cottage, Candymill, Biggar, Lanarkshire, poet, who was the Communist candidate for the constituency of Kinross and West Perthshire at the general election held on 15th October 1964, presented a petition to the Court of Session in which he craved the court to determine that the successful candidate, Sir Alexander Frederick Douglas-Home, was not duly elected or returned and that the election for the constituency was void.
A joint minute for the parties set forth the following facts, inter alia:—"(1) That a parliamentary election for the constituency of Kinross and West Perthshire was held on 15th October 1964 … (2) That the candidates in respect of whom nomination papers were lodged on or before 5th October 1964 were Arthur Donaldson, the Rt. Hon. Sir Alexander Frederick Douglas-Home, the respondent, Andrew Forrester and Christopher Murray Grieve, the petitioner. The said Arthur Donaldson was a member of the Scottish National Party and adopted by their local Committee; the said Sir Alexander Frederick Douglas-Home was a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party and adopted by their local Committee; the said Andrew Forrester was a member of the Labour Party and adopted by their local Committee; and the said Christopher Murray Grieve was a member of the Communist Party and adopted by their local Committee. (3) That on 16th October 1964 the Returning Officer returned Sir Alexander Frederick Douglas-Home to the Clerk of the Crown as being duly elected Member of Parliament for the said constituency. (4) That the writ for the holding of the said election was issued on 25th September 1964. (5) That the said Sir Alexander Frederick Douglas-Home appointed as his election agent John Gray Robertson, 37 King Street, Crieff, and public notice to that effect was given by the Returning Officer on 5th October 1964. (6) That on 26th September 1964 and again on 13th October 1964 the said Sir Alexander Frederick Douglas-Home took part in two television broadcasts, each lasting approximately fifteen minutes, from approximately 9.30 p.m. to 9.45 p.m., on both of the said dates. During part of the first of these broadcasts and during almost the whole of the second of these broadcasts a visual representation of Sir Alexander Frederick Douglas-Home was transmitted by television apparatus to television receivers throughout the United Kingdom, including the said constituency, and the words spoken by him were transmitted by television apparatus to television receivers throughout the United Kingdom, including the said constituency, such receivers being capable of receiving the said visual representation and words. During the closing seconds of the broadcast on 13th October 1964 the spoken words "Vote Conservative" were repeated in visual form in association with a visual representation of the respondent … (8) That on 28th September 1964 and again on 12th October 1964 the Rt. Hon. Harold Wilson took part in two television broadcasts, each lasting approximately fifteen minutes, from approximately 9.30p.m. to 9.45 p.m., on both of the said dates. During the greater part of the first of these broadcasts and during almost the whole of the second of these broadcasts a visual representation of Mr Harold Wilson was transmitted by television apparatus to television receivers throughout the United Kingdom including the said constituency and the constituency for which Mr Harold Wilson was a candidate … (10) That on 10th October 1964 the Rt. Hon. Jo Grimond took part in a television broadcast lasting approximately fifteen minutes, from approximately 9.30 p.m. to 9.45 p.m. During the greater part of this broadcast a visual representation of Mr Jo Grimond was transmitted by television apparatus to television receivers throughout the United Kingdom, including the said constituency and the constituency for which Mr Jo Grimond was a candidate … (12) That all the said broadcasts were relayed by all the stations of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority. (13) That on 30th September 1964 and again on 6th and 9th October 1964 the British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Television Authority broadcast by television programmes lasting fifteen minutes approximately, from approximately 9.30 p.m. to 9.45p.m. on each date. Those taking part in the said programmes included the Rt. Hon. Edward Heath, the Rt. Hon. Quintin Hogg, Mr Christopher Chataway, the Rt. Hon. Sir Keith Joseph, Miss Mervyn Pike, the Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Boyle, Mr Edward du Cann, the Rt. Hon. R. A. Butler, the Rt. Hon. Reginald Maudling and the Rt. Hon. Peter Thorney-croft, who had all been members of the former Parliament and members of the former Conservative and Unionist Party Administration … (14) That on 2nd, 5th and 8th October 1964 the British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Television Authority broadcast by television programmes lasting fifteen minutes approximately, from approximately 9.30 p.m. to 9.45 p.m. on each date. Those taking part in the said programmes included Mr Anthony Wedgwood Benn, the Rt. Hon. George Brown, the Rt. Hon. William Ross, Lady Megan Lloyd George, Mrs Shirley Williams, the Rt. Hon. R. M. M. Stewart, the Rt. Hon. Kenneth Robinson, the Rt. Hon. Richard Crossman, the Rt. Hon. James Callaghan, the Rt. Hon. Patrick Gordon Walker, the Rt. Hon. Ray Gunter and the Rt. Hon. Denis Healey, who had all (with the exception of the said Mrs Shirley Williams) been members of the former Parliament and who were all members of the Labour Party and likely to form part of the Labour Party Administration in the event of the Labour Party obtaining a majority in the General Election … (15) That on 29th September 1964 and again on 7th October 1964 the British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Television Authority broadcast by television programmes lasting fifteen minutes approximately, from approximately 9.30 p.m. to 9.45p.m. on each date. Those taking part in the said programmes included Mr Frank Byers, Mr Mark Bonham Carter, Mr J. J. Thorpe, Mrs Margaret Wingfield, Mr Michael Ingrams, Mr Ludovic Kennedy and Professor Michael Fogarty, all of whom are prominent members of the Liberal Party … (17) There were 32,931 electors on the Electoral Roll of the said constituency applicable to the said election. (18) There were at the date of the said broadcasts about 12,900,000 holders of television receiving licences in the United Kingdom and a substantial number of these were in the said constituency. (19) For many years it has been the practice of the British Broadcasting Corporation to make arrangements for the transmission of party political programmes by television and radio at the time of general elections and periodically at other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coughlan v Broadcasting Complaints Commission
...be covered and, for example, some participants in a general election and some minor parties may be excluded (seeGrieve v. Douglas-Home [1965] S.C. 315 at p. 338per Lord Kilbrandon). But the situation is different with a referendum where the electorate is being invited to answer a question '......
-
Petition Of Timothy Morrison And Others Against Alistair Carmichael Mp And Another
...Section 106 should therefore be strictly construed (Bennion, Statutory Interpretation (6th ed) sections 271-282; Grieve v Douglas-Home, 1965 SC 315 at page 335; R (Woolas) v Parliamentary Election Court [2012] QB 1, paragraphs 82-86, 94-95), particularly as there was no statutory requiremen......
-
DPP v Luft
...the certified question ought to be answered "Yes". These were R. v. Tronoh Mines Ltd. [1952] 1 All E.R. 697 and Grieve v. Douglas-Home 1965 S.L.T. 186. In the former case the defendant, while a general election was pending, published in a national newspaper an advertisement attacking the f......
- Grieve v Douglas-Home