Parkinson v Lewis and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Judge Saffman |
| Judgment Date | 18 March 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 725 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: M354/15 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 18 March 2016 |
[2016] EWHC 725 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
His Honour Judge Saffman
Case No: M354/15
Mr. Parkinson appeared in person.
Ms. Aileen McColgan (instructed by Messrs Steel and Shamash) for the first and second Respondent
The third Respondent was unrepresented.
Mr. Timothy Straker QC and Ms. Sappho Dias (instructed by Messrs Sharpe Pritchard) for the the fourth Respondent
I am dealing with a petition brought under section 127 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. By section 145(1) of the 1983 Act, the purpose of such a petition is to determine whether the respondents to the petition were duly elected in the local election to which the petition relates, or whether the election is void and thus needs to be rerun.
This petition concerns the local election held on 7th May 2015 for the election of councillors to Winsford town council in Winsford Cheshire, where we sit today.
7th May 2015 was a big day in election terms. In addition to it being the date of the last general election, it was also the date upon which many local elections were held. Indeed, in Cheshire and Chester alone I am told there were 97 local elections for which one returning officer, Mr. Steve Robinson, the fourth respondent in this petition was responsible. He was also the returning officer in this area for the general election. He is represented in this petition by Mr. Straker QC and Miss Sappho Dias.
For the purpose of its local elections, as well as of course for the purpose of the effective representation of its residents, Winsford is divided into wards, one of which is the Over ward.
The petitioner, Mr. Charles John Parkinson who acts in person, was standing for election as a councillor for that ward. So too were the first three respondents to the petition Mrs. Georgina Lewis, known as Gina Lewis, Mr. Graham Crawley, and Mrs. Margaret Dolphin. There were other candidates as well, nine in total; for the three available seats.
Ms. Aileen McColgan acts for Mrs. Lewis and Mr. Crawley. Mrs. Dolphin has been present both yesterday and today but has taken no active part in the proceedings to date nor has she taken any part in the proceedings yesterday or today, despite an invitation to do so if she wished. She preferred instead to regard herself merely as an interested observer.
The first three respondents were successfully elected. The petitioner was unsuccessful. Indeed, in terms of votes, he came sixth, he received 518 votes. Mrs. Lewis received 833, Mr. Crawley 759, Mrs. Dolphin 678, Mrs. Lynda Jones got 664, and Mrs. Lewis's husband, John, got 633. It is fair to say that, and I say this with the greatest of respect to Mr. Parkinson, he came well down the field.
His petition however is premised on the assertion that the first three respondents were not duly elected, because their nomination as candidates in the election was flawed. I have already made reference to section 127; subsection 1(b) permits an election to be questioned by petition on the grounds amongst one other that the person whose election is questioned was not duly elected. By section 128, it is clear that Mr. Parkinson, as a candidate in that election, has the standing to present a petition questioning the election of the first three respondents on that basis.
How does he say that the election was flawed so that these three respondents were not duty elected? It is appropriate, I think, at this point, to look briefly at the statutory framework governing local elections insofar as it is relevant to this petition. The starting point is the Representation of the People Act 1983, to which I have already referred. Section 36(1) provides that elections for councillors for local government areas in England and Wales shall be conducted in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State. The relevant rules are the Local Election (Parishes and Communities) England and Wales Rules 2006, which I shall call the 2006 Rules.
By schedule 2 these rules deal with the conduct of an election of councillors of the parish or community where the poll is not taken together with a poll at another election. Schedule 3 deals with the election of councillors where the poll is taken together with the poll at a relevant election. Everybody in this case agrees that since this poll was taken with the poll for the general election schedule 3 applies.
Rule 4.1 of the 2006 Rules, stipulates that each candidate must be nominated by a separate nomination paper in the form of the appendix to the Rules. In fact, it transpires that the nomination papers, which I am concerned, do not actually conform to the precedent set out in the relevant appendix to the Rule.
In paragraph 22 of her skeleton argument Ms. McColgan touches upon this. She argues that by note 1 of the nomination paper in this case the papers incorrectly draw the attention of candidates and electors to the rules for filling up nomination papers contained in schedule 2 of the 2006 Rules. That, in fact, is clearly so, and it is clearly an error where, as here, schedule 3 applies. In fact, it would seem that the precedent itself referable to schedule 3, wrongly makes reference to schedule 2. So, in fact, in that respect the nomination papers do actually comply with the precedent as required by Rule 4.1.
It would seem to me that to that extent the precedent form annexed to the Rules needs amendment. Be that as it may, in fact the nomination papers for the first three respondents and some of the other candidates did depart from the precedent in the annex to schedule 3 of the Rules, because the precedent contains the following wording almost at the beginning of the nomination paper after the reference to the election to which it relates, and the ward and the town. The wording of the precedent is:
" We the undersigned being local government electors for the said ward/parish/community, do hereby nominate the under mentioned person as a candidate at the said election."
The nomination papers with which I am concerned omit the word "ward". It may be thought that this is an unfortunate omission in the circumstances of this case for the reasons which I shall come to.
Rule 4 goes on to set out what information the nomination paper must contain. It includes stating the home address of the candidate in full. I mention that because much attention in this case has been paid to the case of R v Election court ex parte Shepherd 1975 QB 13.19. This was a Divisional Court decision which considered what the effect was in law of a failure to insert in the nomination paper a correct home address. That was decided on the basis of the Rules applicable at the time, namely the Local Election (Principal Areas) Rules 1973. The 2006 Rules and the 1973 Rules create essentially the same obligation.
I move on from Rule 4 to Rule 6. It is Rule 6 that is at the nub of the petitioner's case. That requires:
"6.—(1) The nomination paper must be subscribed by two electors as proposer and seconder."
It is, by use of the word "must", a mandatory provision. An elector for this purpose is defined by Rule 6 (7). Rule 6(7)(a) is the relevant sub-rule for the purpose of this petition. It states:
"(7) In this rule 'elector'—
"(a) means a person who is registered in the register of local government electors for the electoral area in question on the last day for the publication of notice of the election."
I emphasise "for the electoral area". The wording is actually reproduced on note 6 of the precedent nomination paper, annexed to schedule 3 of the Rules. Electoral areas are defined in section 203 of the 1983 Act. It is agreed that since Winsford is warded that is divided into wards, the effect of that definition is that in this case the proposer and seconder must be registered for the Over ward since that is the electoral area in question.
In fact, neither Mrs. Dolphin's proposer nor seconder were registered as electors for the Over ward. Her proposer and seconder were, respectively, a Mrs. and Mr. Hassle, who are actually registered as electors in the Swanlow ward. As for Mrs. Lewis and Mr. Crawley, it is an agreed fact that, while in each case their proposer was a resident of the Over ward, their seconders were not.
The parties have in fact been able to agree a number of facts in this case, in anticipation that the case may have been dealt with as a special case stated, rather than a hearing at which evidence is heard. In the statement of agreed facts, it is agreed that Mrs. Lewis' seconder was Councillor Donald Beckett of Dean Ward. The statement of agreed facts records that Mr. Crawley, while proposed by a resident of Over ward, was seconded by Councillor Brian Clarke of Gravel Ward. In fact, in both his witness statements Mr. Robinson asserts that Mrs. Lewis was seconded by Councillor Clarke, rather than Councillor Beckett, but either way it is clear and indeed accepted by Ms. McColgan on behalf of her clients, Mrs. Lewis and Mr. Crawley, that their the nomination papers were accordingly defective.
Mrs. Dolphin's witness statement clearly implies, if it is not actually expressed, that she too accepts that as it turns out, although she did not know it at the relevant time, her nomination paper was likewise defective.
This case, therefore, is overarchingly concerned in my judgment therefore, with the question of what therefore is the legal effect of the admitted failure by all three candidates...
To continue reading
Request your trial