McCrory v Hendron
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1993 |
| Date | 01 January 1993 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
- Illegal practices - Election expenses - Relief - Candidate and election agent failing to verify and make valid declaration as to election expenses - Agent distributing documents without name and address of printer appearing on their face - Whether relief available - Whether illegal practices due to inadvertence - Whether lack of good faith - Whether candidate vicariously liable - Whether expenditure in excess of maximum amount permitted - Whether election expenses -Whether election expenses "knowingly incurred" -Representation of the People Act, 1983, ss. 81 (1), 82 (1), (2), 86, 110 (1), (3), 167 - Representation of the People Act, 1983, ss. 76 (1), 78 (2), (3), 167.
On 9 April, 1992, Dr. Joseph Gerard Hendron (the first respondent) was elected as the member of Parliament for the constituency of Belfast West, representing the Social Democratic and Labour Party (the S.D.L.P.). His election agent was Mr. Thomas Kelly (the second respondent). A petition was presented by Maura McCrory (the petitioner) under s. 121 of the Representation of the People Act, 1983, alleging various illegal practices on the part of the two respondents. The petitioner claimed in the petition (i) that, contrary to s. 82(2) of the Act, the first respondent had failed to deliver personally a declaration verifying the return of election expenses; (ii) that, contrary to s. 81(1), the second respondent had failed to deliver a return as to election expenses within 35 days of the day on which the election result was declared; (iii) that, contrary to s. 82(1), the second respondent had failed to deliver a declaration verifying the election expenses; (iv) that, contrary to s. 76(1), the second respondent had knowingly incurred expenditure amounting to £782.02 in excess of the maximum amount of election expenses allowed for the conduct and management of the election consisting of the cost of the hire and repair of a minibus for use in the three Belfast constituencies being contested by the S.D.L.P. in the election, the cost of hiring a public address system for the personal use of the party leader during his weekend campaign in West Belfast, the cost of hiring elevation equipment, which was not used, the cost of some advertisements placed in the Irish News at a discounted rate and the cost of an election survey commissioned and carried out before the election was called; (v) that, contrary to s. 78(2), the second respondent had failed to pay all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sinnott v Martin
...(NO 2) ACT 2002 S31(1)(A)(II) ELECTORAL (AMDT) (NO 2) ACT 2002 S31(1)(A)(III) ELECTORAL (AMDT) (NO 2) ACT 2002 S43 MCCRORY V HENDRON 1993 NI 177 CONSTITUTION ART 28.11.2 ELECTORAL (AMDT) ACT 2001 Synopsis: ELECTIONS AND REFERENDA Expenses Statutory spending limits imposed on candidates dur......
-
Finch and another v Richardson
...may be 'inadvertence', has been considered by Kelly LJ and Higgins J in the Queens Bench division of Northern Ireland in the case of McCrory v Hendron [1993] NI QBD 177. At page 181f Kelly LJ observed that the requirements and restrictions imposed by the Act are there to be obeyed by those ......
-
R v Jones (Fiona)
...Plymouth Case (1929) 7 O'M & H 101, particularly at pages 122–123; R v Tronoh Mines Limited and Others [1952] 1 All E.R 697; and McCrory v Hendron and Another [1993] NI 177, particularly at pages 191–196. In the last of these cases, at page 195, Kelly LJ held that section 76 required proof ......
-
Mok Charles Peter v Tam Wai Ho And Another
...added) 43. After saying that the summing up reflected the effect of a long line of cases including McCrory v. Hendron and Another [1993] N.I. 177, DC, Lord Bingham went on to say that at page 195 in McCrory, Kelly L.J. held that section 76 required proof of two elements: that the expenditur......