Woolas judgement: the worst campaign leaflet?

A special court found that the leaflet which caused Mr Woolas’ Liberal Democrat opponent Elwyn Watkins to complain contained false statements about Mr Watkins’ political conduct that could also refer to his personal character or conduct. The court also found that Mr Woolas knew the statements to be false.

The last time an election result was challenged on the basis of corrupt practices was in 1911 but it is not the first time that an election leaflet has caused controversy.

During the same election, this time in Oxfordshire, another Lib Dem Dr Evan Harris was the target of a campaign by the animal rights campaigners of the Animal Protection Party whose leaflets dubbed him “Dr Death” for his support for euthanasia and extending the time limit on abortion. Another anonymous campaign drew attention to Dr Harris’ secularist views.

Barrister Richard Price QC told Channel 4 News that although such leaflets may be strongly worded, they are often acceptable under election laws.

“I think on many emotive election issues such as abortion or euthanasia, comments about the opinions people hold are normally expressions of political opinion, not statements of fact.

“The section only applies to false statements of fact, and then only to statements about a candidate’s personal character or conduct, rather than political character or conduct. The borderline between the two is often difficult to determine.”

“Straight Choice”

But the party in yellow has not always been on the receiving end of smears, it has been accused in the past of conducting dirty tricks campaigns itself.

Back in 1983 the now deputy leader of the Lib Dems but then Liberal-SDP Alliance candidate, Simon Hughes was criticised for a campaign against the gay campaigner Peter Tatchell in Bermondsey, which included a leaflet using the phrase “This Election is a Straight Choice”.

Mr Hughes apologised to Mr Tatchell in 2006 for the campaign which he said was “unacceptable” in parts.

Mr Tatchell later said he forgave Mr Hughes and backed him for his subsequently unsuccessful bid to be Lib Dem leader.

Mr Justice Teare's judgement on Phil Woolas' election 
"In an election address entitled The Examiner, the respondent (Mr Woolas) made a statement of fact, the meaning of which was that the petitioner attempted to woo, that is to seek, the electoral support of Muslims who advocated violence, in particular violence to the respondent.
In a further election address entitled Labour Rose, he made a statement of fact the meaning of which was that the petitioner had refused to condemn extremists who advocated violence against the respondent.
We have concluded that both of these statements, although made in the context of an election and said to arise from a political position adopted by the petitioner, were in relation to the petitioner's personal character or conduct.
In our judgment to say that a person has sought the electoral support of persons who advocate extreme violence, in particular to his personal opponent, clearly attacks his personal character or conduct.
It suggests that he is willing to condone threats of violence in pursuit of personal advantage.
Having considered the evidence which was adduced in court we are sure that these statements were untrue. We are also sure that the respondent had no reasonable grounds for believing them to be true and did not believe them to be true.
We also found that (in) an earlier election address the respondent had made a statement in fact, namely, that the petitioner had reneged on his promise to live in the constituency. This too, although made in the context of an election and said to arise from a statement made by the petitioner as a candidate in that election, was in relation to his personal character or conduct.
It suggests that he is untrustworthy. The statement was false and the respondent had no reasonable ground for believing it to be true and did not believe it to be true.
It follows in our judgment that the respondent is guilty of an illegal practice, contrary to section 136 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 with regard to those statements.
The consequence of our finding that the respondent is guilty of an illegal practice with regard to the statements we have referred to is that, pursuant to section 159(1) of the Act, his election as Member of Parliament for the constituency of Oldham East and Saddleworth is void and we have so reported to the Speaker of the House of Commons.
"We are satisfied that the statutory penalties for the illegal practices committed by the respondent are both necessary and proportionate, having regard to the seriousness of the statements made with regard to the petitioner's alleged attitude to the Muslim extremists who advocated violence."

Expensive

Today’s judgement would appear to be the first time for almost a century that the representation of the people act (RPA) has been used successfully to overturn the results of a Parliamentary election on the grounds of a candidate using an illegal practice in their promotional literature.

This despite the volume of leaflets and election literature that is distributed to letterboxes around the country during election time.

Richard Price is not surprised that few candidates feel aggrieved enough by claims and comments made about them and their party to try and get the election result quashed: “No one has launched a parliamentary election petition under this section for almost 100 years and that is probably because proceedings are so expensive and you have only 21 days from the time of the announcement of the election result to issue the petition.

“Also, the section outlaws false statements of fact about the personal character or conduct of a candidate, not political character or conduct. Often it is not easy to decide whether an offending statement concerns political or personal character or conduct.”

The time delay also means it is unlikely that today’s judgement will open the floodgates on other complaints from those who lost their seats after hard fought and sometimes “dirty” campaigns.