Watkins v Woolas
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 November 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 2702 (QB) |
| Date | 05 November 2010 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Claim NO.P133/10 |
[2010] EWHC 2702 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ELECTION COURT
Before: Mr. Justice Teare and Mr. Justice Griffith Williams
Claim NO.P133/10
In the Matter of the Representation of the People Act 1983
Helen Mountfield QC and James Laddie (instructed by K&L Gates LLP) for the Petitioner
Gavin Millar QC and Anthony Hudson (instructed by Steel & Shamash) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 13–16 September 2010
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
MR. JUSTICE TEARE and MR. JUSTICE GRIFFITH WILLIAMS
Teare and Griffith Williams JJ:
This is the Judgment of the Court.
In the General Election held on 6 May 2010 Philip Woolas (“the Respondent”), who was the sitting MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth (“OES”), retained his seat, defeating his nearest rival, Robert Elwyn Watkins (“the Petitioner”), by 103 votes. The Respondent was the candidate of the Labour Party. The Petitioner was the candidate of the Liberal Democratic Party.
By a petition issued pursuant to section 120 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (RPA 1893) the Petitioner has contested the result of the election. He alleges that the Respondent was guilty of an illegal practice contrary to section 106 of the RPA 1983, namely, before the election and for the purpose of affecting the return, he made or published several false statements of fact in relation to the Petitioner's personal character or conduct which he had no reasonable grounds for believing to be true and did not believe to be true.
The alleged false statements of fact were published in three election addresses sent to voters shortly before the election. These election addresses were drafted by members of the Respondent's election team. The Respondent made suggestions as to what should and should not be in the addresses and approved them in their final form to ensure that they contained nothing objectionable. He has accepted responsibility for them. He said that he was aware that there was a prohibition against making false statements in relation to a candidate's personal character or conduct but he denied that the election addresses evidenced any illegal practice contrary to section 106 of the RPA 1983.
If he is guilty of an illegal practice then section 159(1) of the RPA 1083 requires that his election shall be void. In addition he will be incapable of being elected to the House of Commons for three years; see section 160(4) and (5).
Section 106 and its predecessors have governed what may and what may not be said during an election campaign since 1895.
The constituency
The constituency of OES was a new constituency in 1997 following significant boundary changes. It is the largest constituency in Greater Manchester and has always been regarded as a marginal seat. The electorate in 2010 was 70,984. In a census taken in 2001 9% of the population was identified as Asian and 8.5% as Muslim. The Respondent said that his majority of 3,590 was exceeded by the number of Muslims in the constituency.
The constituency covers the eastern part of Oldham (which includes the ward of St Mary, of which Glodwick is a part) and the areas of Shaw, Crompton and Saddleworth, which include the village of Delph.
In 2001 there were race riots in Oldham in the run-up to the General Election. In 2006 the Cantle Report noted that efforts had been made to improve community relations but “segregation and divisions between Oldham's communities are still deeply entrenched.”
The Petitioner
Since May 1998 the Petitioner has worked as a personal assistant and business adviser to Sheikh Abdullah Ali Alhamrani. The Sheikh lives in Saudi Arabia, where most of his business interests are, but he holidays in the United Kingdom and has bought plant and equipment and professional services from UK firms for textile factories in Saudi Arabia. The Petitioner worked initially in Saudi Arabia for about 4 years before he moved to Germany, where he worked for about 2 years. On behalf of the Sheikh he has travelled widely. The last time he travelled to Saudi Arabia was in February 2010.
He said in evidence that he has no formal written contract of employment but is paid for such work as he undertakes for the Sheikh. The amount of remuneration is a matter for negotiation. Payment varies and there can be some time between completing the work and payment. He said that he was self-employed and was not a director of a company anywhere in the world from which he drew income. His gross earnings from the Sheikh for the calendar year 2008 were £19,994. He estimated that this was probably for some 30 days work. For the calendar year 2009 his gross earnings were £107,844 and for the calendar year 2010 to 25 th August, £18,076.
From May 2004 until 18 th March 2010, the Petitioner was the councillor for the Healey ward of the Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council. In that capacity he was paid an annual allowance of £7,500; for some time until May 2008, he received an additional special responsibility allowance of some £7,000 as chairman of Rochdale Township. The Petitioner accepted that he failed to attend council meetings for nearly 6 months between April and October 2008 and so was close to losing his seat.
He was selected as the Liberal Democratic Party candidate for OES in September 2007.
The Petitioner made a number of donations to the OES constituency Liberal Democratic Party. His evidence, which we accept, was that all his donations were personal and were disclosed to the Electoral Commission. His donations between September 2007 and September 2009 in the form of cash and in payment of bills totalled £11,890. Between September 2009 and the election on 6 th May 2010 his donations totalled £27,014, making total donations of £38,904. He agreed that his contributions were some 25% of the total sum donated to the constituency party between April 2001 and June 2010. He said that many candidates across the country who wish to be elected contribute to the cost of their campaign.
The Respondent
Before being elected to Parliament in 1997 the Respondent had a career in television and communications. Thus from 1986–1988 he had been a researcher for TVS, from 1988–1990 a television producer for the BBC on Newsnight and from 1990–1991 a political producer on Channel 4 News. Between 1991 and 1997 he was Head of Communications at the GMB trades union.
In 2003 he was appointed Deputy Leader of the House of Commons. In 2005 he was appointed Minister of State with responsibility for local government. In 2007 he was appointed Minister for the Environment and in 2008 was appointed Minister of State for Borders and Immigration.
The Respondent's election agent
17. The Respondent's election agent was Mr. Fitzpatrick. He was not a party to these proceedings. Nevertheless it was part of the Petitioner's case as evidenced by the Petition that Mr. Fitzpatrick was guilty of an illegal practice. For that reason, before he gave evidence and pursuant to section 160(1) of the RPA 1983, this court gave him notice of that allegation in order that he might have the opportunity of being heard and of calling evidence in his defence. He did not wish to take either opportunity. At the conclusion of his evidence and before submissions the court again gave him an opportunity to make submissions which he declined. However, in circumstances where a detailed case that he had committed an illegal practice was not put to him in cross-examination and where no submissions were made as to why he should be found guilty of an illegal practice we do not propose to consider whether he was guilty of an illegal practice. We do not consider that it would be appropriate to do so.
The election addresses
The election campaign, for the purposes of election expenses, is divided into two parts, the “long campaign” and the “short campaign”. The latter is the three week period from the calling of the election by the Prime Minister until polling day. In 2010 that was the period from 12 April until 6 May. The election addresses of which complaint is made were distributed to the electors in the latter part of that campaign, and particularly in the last week of that campaign.
The first election address of which complaint is made was published on 21 April 2010. A copy of it is appended to this judgment as appendix 3. It consisted of 4 pages. On page two there was a box which, so far as material, contained the following:
“Did you know?
Interesting facts about our Lib Dem candidate.
He's reneged on his promise to live in the constituency. He had said, “I've got my eye on Lees – you can still get tripe in the Co-Op”. You can't of course but he does talk it.”
The second election address of which complaint is made was in the form of a newspaper, “the Saddleworth and Oldham Examiner”, printed in the week before the election on Friday 30 April and distributed over the following weekend. A copy of it is appended to this judgment as appendix 1. It consisted of 8 pages.
On pages 4 and 5 was an article entitled “Watkins accused of wooing extremist vote”. The text of the article said:
“Voters of Oldham East and Saddleworth are asking the question, “why are the extremists urging a vote for Watkins?”. In face of Woolas' tough stance and a Conservative candidate who is against their views, the extremists are backing the Liberal Democrat. In his attempts to woo the vote he has called for Israel to be isolated from arms sales—but not Palestine.
Woolas told a rally of moderate Muslims in Clarksfield “The Lib Dems are weak and blow with the wind. Don't let them pander to extremists.” The rally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patrick Heesom v The Public Services Ombudsman for Wales The Welsh Ministers (Interveners)
...electorate of their preferred representative. 62 Whilst there are no authorities directly in point, Mr Henderson relied upon two cases, Watkins v Woolas [2010] EWHC 2702 (QB) and Matyjek v Poland (2006) Application No 38184/03). 63 Watkins v Woolas , despite its neutral citation number, wa......
-
R (Woolas) v Parliamentary Election Court for Oldham East and Saddleworth
...in the three leaflets in relation to the personal conduct of Mr Watkins in the election leaflets. The decision is reported at [2010] EWHC 2702 (QB). It found that three of the statements, on the meaning attributed by the Court to them, (i) were statements of fact and not opinion (ii) were i......
-
Andrew Erlam and Others (Petitioners) v Mohammed Lutfur Rahman and Another
...relating to election petitions, it is necessary briefly to rebut the criticism made in certain quarters after the high profile case of Watkins v Woolas2 (referred to hereafter as ' Woolas') in which the election of Mr Philip Woolas as Member of Parliament for Oldham East and Saddleworth in ......
-
Yu Chi Shing Paul v Tin Ping Estate Proprietor Concernment Association And Others
...such office[6]. These consequences can be characterized as penal and there could be human right implications, see Watkins v Wollas [2010] EWHC 2702 (QB) paras 48-50 and 57-58. Having regard to the objects of the ECICO as stated in s3 of the ordinance, it cannot be the legislative intent to ......
-
2011-05-01
...106. For a recent and rare determination of an election being void following in breach of this provision, see Watkins v Woolas [2010] EWHC 2702 (QB). disrupting election meetings1414s 92. and illegal practices in relation to election expenses.1515s 73(6). As arcane and diverse as this list ......