Former Labour minister Phil Woolas is accused of stirring up racial divisions in a tightly-fought election campaign against his Lib Dem rival in Oldham East and Saddleworth, a court has been told.
The rare hearing at Saddleworth Civic Hall in Uppermill is the first attempt to overturn an election result for ninety nine years.
Two High Court judges are presiding over the five-day hearing, which was called on a rarely-used clause of the representation of the People Act (1983) to declare the 5 May election result void and force a new vote.
Phil Woolas won the constituency with a 103 majority following two recounts.
He beat the Liberal Democrat’s Elwyn Watkins – who claimed that leaflets published during the campaign containing false claims about foreign donations and support from Muslim extremists.
The hearing heard how Mr Woolas’s campaign team aimed to “galvanise the white Sun vote” – by depicting an alleged campaign by Muslims to “take Phil out”.
Before the hearing, Mr Watkins said the publications featured “numerous misleading and erroneous claims regarding my personal character and reputation, and that of my campaign”.
Opening the case, Helen Mountfield QC said diary entries kept during the election by Mr Woolas showed he was “pretty convinced” he was going to lose.
The prosecutor said he feared a national swing away from the ruling party, the expenses scandal and decisions made by him as an immigration minister which “may not have endeared him to some members of his constituency” would contribute to his downfall.
The court heard that Mr Woolas’ team also said Mr Watkins had made policy statements to “woo” and “pander” to people they described as fanatics and militants.
“They falsely suggested that Mr Watkins took this craven stance to the point of refusing to condemn death threats which Mr Woolas claimed had been made against him because he was ‘in the pay’ of a rich Arab sheikh,” Miss Mountfield said.
She added: “These statements were made in a desperate attempt to change the election result.
“Mr Woolas made these false statements as part of a series of reckless and irresponsible steps in this campaign – using doctored photographs, misrepresenting facts, stooping even to fomenting racial divisions and tensions.
“He did it because he feared that if he didn’t he would lose.
“Mr Woolas has put it out in the press that Mr Watkins has brought this case as a matter of sour grapes but Mr Woolas knows that this court has no powers to rule who won the election.”
Giving evidence, Mr Woolas denied there was anything deceitful contained in the three publications he approved.
The MP under cross-examination from Miss Mountfield’s junior counsel James Laddie agreed the purpose of not making statements about a person’s character in an election was to protect the electorate rather than the candidate.
Mr Laddie said: “It is also important for someone to ensure an election address contains nothing deceitful and it is accurate.”
“Yes,” replied Mr Woolas.
The barrister continued: “Do any of those three publications contain a deceit?”
“No, they do not at all,” he replied.
The last case of its kind was in 1911, when an election result was successfully challenged on the basis of currupt practices.
A second challenge also begun today in Northern Ireland over the result in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Sinn Fein’s Michelle Gildernew won the constituency by just four votes over independent rival Rodney Connor.