Reply To: Elections aftermath

Home Forums Discussion Forum Elections aftermath Reply To: Elections aftermath

Kim Sanders-Fisher

I have been looking for the legal path and Statute of Limitations for bringing an Election Petition to challenge the incomprehensible results of the 2019 General Election that appeared so obviously rigged to enable the fake Tory “landslide” victory. This document was particularly helpful due to its clear language: “Electoral Petitions the Law Commission’s Proposals for Reform.

The grounds for bringing a legal challenge.
Challenge to an election can only be brought by way of an election petition. It is imperative that the petition is presented in the form prescribed by the rules as detailed in the legislation. One way in which an election petition can be used (amongst other statutory grounds for challenge), is to challenge the validity of an election and to correct the result, through a process known as “scrutiny”. This power of the election courts grants them with the ability to look at particular votes to determine whether the electors who cast them were entitled to do so, and if not, the Court has the power to strike off those invalid votes. The legislation in its current form provides that where the validity of an election is successfully challenged, it can be annulled on one of three grounds.”

The Law Commission goes on to highlight that these grounds are not all presented together clearly in one place so they recommend:
“The Law Commission has attempted to collate the grounds together in one place in accessible and unequivocal terms in its interim report [3], as follows:
(1) a breach of electoral law during the conduct of the election which was either:
(a) fundamental; or
(b) materially affected the result of the election;
(2) corrupt or illegal practices committed either:
(a) by the winning candidate personally or through that candidate’s agents; or
(b) by anyone else, to the benefit of the winning candidate, where such practices were so widespread that they could reasonably be supposed to have affected the result; or
(3) the winning candidate was at the time of the election disqualified from office.”

While this Law Commission article is well worth reading I cannot find a similar clear set of rules that indicate the statute of limitations on filing that govern the recourse open to petitioners. The limitation is tighter than for other areas of justice and redress due to the need for finality and to bring certainty for an individual candidate. The difficulty here is that the alleged postal vote ballot stuffing of the 2019 appears to be so pervasive and so widespread that it has provided fake legitimacy to an entire elected government placing the Tory Party in an unchallengeable position of dominant power through illegal means.

Towards the conclusion of the Law Commission article there is a recommendation about where and by whom these Electoral petition challenges should be heard and ruled on; it states that:
“The judiciary for England and Wales is supportive of the call for reform and to this end, Sir Brian Leveson, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division stated:
‘The proposal to transfer the election court’s jurisdiction to the High Court in England and Wales, and to bring the Election Petition Rules within the scope of the Civil Procedure Rules, would not only increase administrative efficiency, but more importantly is right in principle. The separation of the election court is…an anomaly, not least as it has all the powers of, and draws its judiciary from, the High Court.’”

While searching for a definitive Statute of Limitations in this area of the law, after delving into the Crown Prosecution website under ‘Legal Guidance – Electoral Offences’ I found the following useful information: “There is no power for the CPS itself to investigate or to direct police officers to do so. Although the Act refers to the Directors duty, by virtue of section 1(7) of the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 any Crown Prosecutor can exercise the functions of the DPP.’”

In offering further guidance, this .gov page then refers the College of Policing section entitled “A Practical Guide to Officers Investigating Election Offences” a site I have linked to before in this forum. Where to direct allegations:
“All allegations of breaches of the Representation of the People Act must be referred to the CPS Special Crime Division (SCD). Should you be approached by the police seeking to investigate election offences, they should be directed to the Authorised Professional Practice (“APP”). This can be accessed from the College of Policing web-site or via the Electoral Commission website. It provides useful guidance on offences and practice. It was designed and written as a practical guide to officers investigating election offences.”

Since I am not a legal eagle I am a bit confused by this and the section on Statute of Limitations which seems to offer two deadlines: “Section 176 lays down the time-limit for the commencement of proceedings for any offence under any provision contained in or made under RPA 1983. That applies to summary only offences which would normally, by virtue of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, be subject to a 6 month time-limit.” (RPA 1983 refers to the Representation of the Peoples Act 1983.)

It goes on to highlight another deadline: “against a person in respect of any offence to which Section 176 applies must be commenced within one year after the offence was committed. For the purpose of Section 176, the laying of information is deemed to be the commencement of the proceedings. There are circumstances in which the time limit can be extended but an application to a Magistrates’ Court do so must be made within the 12 month time limit.”
So how long is the crucial evidence kept and under whose supervision?

Six months or possibly a year is not long at all, but other deadlines are looming too as we will lose all right to appeal to the European Court when Boris Johnson crashes the UK out of the EU in December. This is a matter of dire urgency as the damage of this stolen vote could be catastrophic an irrevocable. Deciphering legal jargon is not in my skill-set. Anyone with the appropriate legal knowledge to be able to explain and elaborate on the information in these source links do please share your expertise with us here.