Nick Griffin could have his assets seized if high court rules that leader breached order to amend party's constitution
Fresh from its disastrous showing at the ballot box on 6 May, the British National party now faces financial turmoil with its assets threatened by court action. The high court is to decide whether Nick Griffin and two other BNP officials should face contempt of court proceedings in which their assets could be confiscated under a "writ of sequestration". The assets include Griffin's MEP salary, investments and pensions and any property that they might own. The case shows that no political party is above the law.
The contempt proceedings were brought by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) after the BNP was accused of failing to remove potentially racist clauses from its constitution. The BNP had been in breach of the Race Relations Act 1976 by admitting only white people to the party, but it revised its constitution in February to say it would allow people of any descent or origin to join, but only if the individual "agrees with or supports or does not oppose or does not disagree with the principles of our party".
However, the principles of the party in this amended constitution are still in terms of promoting indigenous over non-indigenous interests, including maintaining the "integrity of the indigenous British" and "restoring and maintaining" the indigenous British as "an overwhelming majority" (indigenous being defined by those that settled in these islands between 11500BC and 6 July 1189).
It is not difficult to see how this is contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976, because by signing up to the principles, any non-indigenous member would have to give up their racial and cultural identity. The BNP has also not changed its rule preventing new members from attending any party meeting until they have been interviewed by two BNP officials. A court in March ruled that this was intimidatory and directed against non-indigenous applicants.
If the high court rules that the BNP is in breach of the March order and gives permission to the EHRC to issue the writ, then it will appoint four commissioners. Two to three of the commissioners will be "authorised and commanded" to take possession of the BNP's assets. These assets will be kept in the hands of the commissioners until the BNP complies with the order to make its constitution free of racial discrimination.
Not only would this be a bitter pill for the BNP to swallow ideologically, it would also be financially punitive. A commissioner can cost up to £1,000 a day, and if the BNP has its assets confiscated, it will cost them up to £3,000 a day for those assets to be held. The BNP faces a period of financial turmoil.
Ed Williams is a barrister at Cloisters Chambers
The Guardian
Showing posts with label High Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label High Court. Show all posts
June 28, 2010
July 23, 2008
Implied threats and fear of failure - Nick Griffin loses his nerve over High Court action
Regular readers will know that ten days ago we reported that the December rebels (Sadie Graham, Kenny Smith and co) had received a letter from Nick Griffin suggesting that the ongoing case in the High Court should be dropped. Here's what we said:
'The December rebels who Griffin was taking through the High Court have received letters this week from the pig farmer himself, asking that the case be dropped because 'it's your homes at risk' and 'it's in the best interests of' party unity and so on, apparently forgetting that it was he himself who brought the case.'
This was immediately questioned by the near-dead Lancaster and Morecambe BNP group's idiotic former organiser Chris Hill who, via the recent leadership-challenger Colin Auty's support blog, Challenge for Leadership, said,
'I may in fact be wrong about the Grifin/Collett gang having officially dropped the case against Sadie & Co. I read a report about a retraction letter being received they the defendants elsewhere on the web (the Lancaster UAF blog), but I've not seen any reports from reliable sources as yet. UAF may well be jumping the gun in reporting the inevitable, but that's UAF for you as about as reliable as Griffin on a bad day.'
We're a good deal more reliable than Nick Griffin - even on a good day when all he does is stay at home and admire his new sauna and jacuzzi while counting his pigs - and to nobody's surprise at all, it turns out that we were telling the truth and those who denied this were telling, forgive me, porkies. Oh, and Chris, in case you hadn't noticed, we changed our name to Lancaster Unity nearly six months ago.
The letter from Griffin to the rebels is reprinted below.
'Dated 8th July 2008
Dear XXXXXXXXXX
Further to our earlier correspondence in connection with proposed disciplinary proceedings, I am writing to you and your colleagues in this matter in an attempt to bring it to an early - and as far as is possible - relatively painless conclusion for all concerned.
In response to my letter of 8th April, several of your group requested that the BNP's internal disciplinary proceedings and connected unfair dismissal hearings. should be stayed pending the outcome of the court case Griffin v Smith & Others. I accepted this as a sensible proposal for all concerned for the time being.
The delay does not, however, alter the fact that our present course will see us back in court, with both sides incurring further very considerable expense. My informed opinion is that you and your colleagues will lose the case, but that Mr. Davies does not mind this in the slightest because his avowed aim is to try and bleed the BNP financially. He knows that the looming problem of negative equity for many home-owners is sufficiently large that, while the end result is likely to be your collective bankruptcy and loss of several homes, we will be unable to recover any significant part of our costs.
I trust that you will already have learnt from the failure of the desperate "Scottish gambit" in which he encouraged you to set so much store that Mr. Davies gungo-ho tendencies do not always work out in the best interests of his clients (as Steve Edwards, Jay Lee, the Roberts Brothers and Tess Culnane have already discovered to their cost).
Especially now that time has elapsed to allow water to flow under various bridges, I ask you individually and collectively, to give very careful consideration to an agreement to end the action on the basis of each side bearing their own costs and going their separate ways. The sums involved at present are, as we all know only too well, steep without being ruinous. It is surely sensible to bring matters to an end while this is the case?
As you know, the BNP has already through the action secured its assets and the privacy of its members (although my solicitor informs me that he is still waiting for the affidavit on these matters from you in accordance with the Judge's directions). While it would have been far better had it been possible to have done so without the expense incurred so far, we have at last achieved what we needed to do, so we have little other than an expensive moral victory to gain by pursuing the matter further if you and your colleagues will agree to end this and any other possible actions. Please note that there can be no question of leaving an opening through which Mr. Davies can continue to use you people as pawns in his own longstanding personal campaign to bring down those who have achieved political success way beyond anything he has been able to manage in his various forays into either "extreme" or "moderate" nationalism.
All concerned have lives to lead and better things to do than enrich lawyers or waste court time. I hope to hear that we can agree on that at least, in which a settlement along the lines outlined above would surely be the only sensible option.'
That the BNP is in dire financial straits is indisputable. Griffin is desperately trying to raise funds to pay for the usual staggeringly-high legal costs that he has already incurred by this pointless action (suggestions of £30,000 have been made by various people who should know) before he and the other officers of the party become personally liable. The fact that he is panicking and floundering around like a landed fish is obvious from this letter.
As usual with Griffin, his preferred mode of defence is attack, though more by implication than clear statement. His criticism of the rebel's barrister Adrian Davies' 'gung-ho tendencies' is a classic ploy, hopefully undermining the rebel's relationship with their counsel, as is the appalling suggestion that Davies is more interested in destroying the BNP than he is in protecting his client's interests - a suggestion that sounds awfully like libel to me but Nick Griffin probably knows more about the law than I do, having a third-rate degree in jurisprudence, the theory and philosophy of law, [yawn, sorry] and having access to one of the sharpest legal brains in the country, Lee Barnes [sarcasm].
The phrase 'the BNP has already through the action secured its assets and the privacy of its members' is an odd one when you consider that the assets (presumably laptops and so on) were grabbed by BNP security long before the court case after illegally gaining access to Graham and co's homes, but we can safely assume that the 'privacy of its members' refers to the court ordering the rebels to stop using the out of date membership lists in their possession. Thirty thousand quid seems an awful lot of money to throw away on getting something virtually worthless from a bunch of people who have done next to nothing to harm the party and who are generally acknowledged to be politically impotent.
Even though asking for, and clearly desperate for, a truce, Griffin still feels the need to ensure that Davies is out of the battle.
'Please note that there can be no question of leaving an opening through which Mr. Davies can continue to use you people as pawns in his own longstanding personal campaign to bring down those who have achieved political success way beyond anything he has been able to manage in his various forays into either "extreme" or "moderate" nationalism.'
Do I detect some nervousness from Griffin? Just a single letter and a number of attacks on Adrian Davies intended to damage client confidence. One wonders if Griffin's legal advisors are aware of this letter and its content. I showed it to a friend of mine who is in the final stages of training to be a barrister and his response was that if one of his clients had written to the opposition in the same terms, he would have no hesitation in dumping the client and immediately beginning what he described as a 'vigorous' process to get paid before the client committed another such faux pas that led straight into the High Court for a libel action.
Of course, there is another possibility. That the rumours are true and that Griffin's legal advisors have told him he gets nothing more out of them until they are paid for the work they have already carried out. As the party is near-bankrupt, paying counsel is impossible at this stage and the thought of having to face the rebels in court with only the help of Lee Barnes must be giving Griffin nightmares. But now Nick Griffin has put himself in a position where he not only has to extract £30,000 from a party that hardly has two pennies to rub together, he has also left himself open to an attack from Adrian Davies which he will find next to impossible to defend himself against.
The former problem might be solved if the cash from the BNP's Red, White and Blue piss-up in August makes enough and is immediately diverted to pay the debt, which might explain the recent statement from the party that the RWB is to be a cash-only event with no advance ticket sales. This could well not work as we hear from a number of trusted sources that there is very little interest in the RWB this year and, naturally, a lot of people are put off from going because of the national demo that's planned, the inevitably heavy police presence and the ban on selling booze.
Adrian Davies though, might well turn out to be the most serious of Griffin's problems. Despite his disparaging comments, Davies is an able barrister with a good deal of experience. Griffin could well find him the Nemesis that he has repeatedly been avoiding for the past few years. In the past, Griffin has always chosen to attack those who cannot fight back - this time he may well have attacked someone who is not only willing, but able to fight back, and who has teeth that are a good deal sharper than his own. We look forward to it.
'The December rebels who Griffin was taking through the High Court have received letters this week from the pig farmer himself, asking that the case be dropped because 'it's your homes at risk' and 'it's in the best interests of' party unity and so on, apparently forgetting that it was he himself who brought the case.'
This was immediately questioned by the near-dead Lancaster and Morecambe BNP group's idiotic former organiser Chris Hill who, via the recent leadership-challenger Colin Auty's support blog, Challenge for Leadership, said,
'I may in fact be wrong about the Grifin/Collett gang having officially dropped the case against Sadie & Co. I read a report about a retraction letter being received they the defendants elsewhere on the web (the Lancaster UAF blog), but I've not seen any reports from reliable sources as yet. UAF may well be jumping the gun in reporting the inevitable, but that's UAF for you as about as reliable as Griffin on a bad day.'
We're a good deal more reliable than Nick Griffin - even on a good day when all he does is stay at home and admire his new sauna and jacuzzi while counting his pigs - and to nobody's surprise at all, it turns out that we were telling the truth and those who denied this were telling, forgive me, porkies. Oh, and Chris, in case you hadn't noticed, we changed our name to Lancaster Unity nearly six months ago.
The letter from Griffin to the rebels is reprinted below.
'Dated 8th July 2008
Dear XXXXXXXXXX
Further to our earlier correspondence in connection with proposed disciplinary proceedings, I am writing to you and your colleagues in this matter in an attempt to bring it to an early - and as far as is possible - relatively painless conclusion for all concerned.
In response to my letter of 8th April, several of your group requested that the BNP's internal disciplinary proceedings and connected unfair dismissal hearings. should be stayed pending the outcome of the court case Griffin v Smith & Others. I accepted this as a sensible proposal for all concerned for the time being.
The delay does not, however, alter the fact that our present course will see us back in court, with both sides incurring further very considerable expense. My informed opinion is that you and your colleagues will lose the case, but that Mr. Davies does not mind this in the slightest because his avowed aim is to try and bleed the BNP financially. He knows that the looming problem of negative equity for many home-owners is sufficiently large that, while the end result is likely to be your collective bankruptcy and loss of several homes, we will be unable to recover any significant part of our costs.
I trust that you will already have learnt from the failure of the desperate "Scottish gambit" in which he encouraged you to set so much store that Mr. Davies gungo-ho tendencies do not always work out in the best interests of his clients (as Steve Edwards, Jay Lee, the Roberts Brothers and Tess Culnane have already discovered to their cost).
Especially now that time has elapsed to allow water to flow under various bridges, I ask you individually and collectively, to give very careful consideration to an agreement to end the action on the basis of each side bearing their own costs and going their separate ways. The sums involved at present are, as we all know only too well, steep without being ruinous. It is surely sensible to bring matters to an end while this is the case?
As you know, the BNP has already through the action secured its assets and the privacy of its members (although my solicitor informs me that he is still waiting for the affidavit on these matters from you in accordance with the Judge's directions). While it would have been far better had it been possible to have done so without the expense incurred so far, we have at last achieved what we needed to do, so we have little other than an expensive moral victory to gain by pursuing the matter further if you and your colleagues will agree to end this and any other possible actions. Please note that there can be no question of leaving an opening through which Mr. Davies can continue to use you people as pawns in his own longstanding personal campaign to bring down those who have achieved political success way beyond anything he has been able to manage in his various forays into either "extreme" or "moderate" nationalism.
All concerned have lives to lead and better things to do than enrich lawyers or waste court time. I hope to hear that we can agree on that at least, in which a settlement along the lines outlined above would surely be the only sensible option.'
That the BNP is in dire financial straits is indisputable. Griffin is desperately trying to raise funds to pay for the usual staggeringly-high legal costs that he has already incurred by this pointless action (suggestions of £30,000 have been made by various people who should know) before he and the other officers of the party become personally liable. The fact that he is panicking and floundering around like a landed fish is obvious from this letter.
As usual with Griffin, his preferred mode of defence is attack, though more by implication than clear statement. His criticism of the rebel's barrister Adrian Davies' 'gung-ho tendencies' is a classic ploy, hopefully undermining the rebel's relationship with their counsel, as is the appalling suggestion that Davies is more interested in destroying the BNP than he is in protecting his client's interests - a suggestion that sounds awfully like libel to me but Nick Griffin probably knows more about the law than I do, having a third-rate degree in jurisprudence, the theory and philosophy of law, [yawn, sorry] and having access to one of the sharpest legal brains in the country, Lee Barnes [sarcasm].
The phrase 'the BNP has already through the action secured its assets and the privacy of its members' is an odd one when you consider that the assets (presumably laptops and so on) were grabbed by BNP security long before the court case after illegally gaining access to Graham and co's homes, but we can safely assume that the 'privacy of its members' refers to the court ordering the rebels to stop using the out of date membership lists in their possession. Thirty thousand quid seems an awful lot of money to throw away on getting something virtually worthless from a bunch of people who have done next to nothing to harm the party and who are generally acknowledged to be politically impotent.
Even though asking for, and clearly desperate for, a truce, Griffin still feels the need to ensure that Davies is out of the battle.
'Please note that there can be no question of leaving an opening through which Mr. Davies can continue to use you people as pawns in his own longstanding personal campaign to bring down those who have achieved political success way beyond anything he has been able to manage in his various forays into either "extreme" or "moderate" nationalism.'
Do I detect some nervousness from Griffin? Just a single letter and a number of attacks on Adrian Davies intended to damage client confidence. One wonders if Griffin's legal advisors are aware of this letter and its content. I showed it to a friend of mine who is in the final stages of training to be a barrister and his response was that if one of his clients had written to the opposition in the same terms, he would have no hesitation in dumping the client and immediately beginning what he described as a 'vigorous' process to get paid before the client committed another such faux pas that led straight into the High Court for a libel action.
Of course, there is another possibility. That the rumours are true and that Griffin's legal advisors have told him he gets nothing more out of them until they are paid for the work they have already carried out. As the party is near-bankrupt, paying counsel is impossible at this stage and the thought of having to face the rebels in court with only the help of Lee Barnes must be giving Griffin nightmares. But now Nick Griffin has put himself in a position where he not only has to extract £30,000 from a party that hardly has two pennies to rub together, he has also left himself open to an attack from Adrian Davies which he will find next to impossible to defend himself against.
The former problem might be solved if the cash from the BNP's Red, White and Blue piss-up in August makes enough and is immediately diverted to pay the debt, which might explain the recent statement from the party that the RWB is to be a cash-only event with no advance ticket sales. This could well not work as we hear from a number of trusted sources that there is very little interest in the RWB this year and, naturally, a lot of people are put off from going because of the national demo that's planned, the inevitably heavy police presence and the ban on selling booze.
Adrian Davies though, might well turn out to be the most serious of Griffin's problems. Despite his disparaging comments, Davies is an able barrister with a good deal of experience. Griffin could well find him the Nemesis that he has repeatedly been avoiding for the past few years. In the past, Griffin has always chosen to attack those who cannot fight back - this time he may well have attacked someone who is not only willing, but able to fight back, and who has teeth that are a good deal sharper than his own. We look forward to it.
Labels:
Adrian Davies,
BNP,
High Court,
libel,
Nick Griffin,
rebels,
RWB,
Sadie Graham
February 12, 2008
Council chief hits out at BNP
Burnley Council's Chief Executive Steve Rumbelow has blasted the British National Party for appealing a "tied" local election result which has left four people facing massive legal costs. High Court judges ruled the result of the May 3rd Rosegrove with Lowerhouse election result will stand in favour of victorious Labour candidate Paul Reynolds over his BNP rival John Rowe whose four supporters face £30,000 in costs.
The disputed election result was declared a tie by the Returning Officer Mr Steve Rumbelow who then drew lots resulting in Paul Reynolds emerging victorious.
Four voters – Michelle Pilling, Scott Atkinson, Susan McDevitt and Iain Smith – challenged the result of the poll, but now face £30,000 in legal cost bills after judges Mr Justice Tugendhat and Mr Justice Blake ruled the disputed ballot paper had been rightly counted in Mr Reynolds' favour.
Burnley Council Chief Executive Mr Rumbelow claimed the petitioners did not get proper legal advice and had been "cajoled into going on a fishing trip".
He said: "Four citizens of Burnley have been put in a position where they face substantial costs, which could have been avoided. The fact that it's four individuals means the British National Party isn't liable for any of the costs despite the fact they've been using this for party political means."
The four petitioners had originally disputed the validity of three ballot papers, but the challenge of two ballots was withdrawn. The disputed ballot paper had a diagonal mark in the left hand column beside the number of the Labour candidate – rather than a cross in the right hand column – but judges ruled the Returning Officer had rightly discerned the voter's intention to cast his vote for Labour.
Labour group leader Coun. Andy Tatchell said: "We are understandably pleased at the decision. Paul Reynolds has done a good job despite the distractions. We were happy on the day that everything was done within the regulations and were rather bewildered that an appeal was made."
Defeated Mr Rowe said: "I'm not sorry we brought this case. I think it is good we brought it because it establishes what the law is. I don't want to be on bad terms with Mr Reynolds because a time may come when we will both be councillors. Until I see the reasoned judgement, I don't know whether we're going to appeal."
Burnley Express
The disputed election result was declared a tie by the Returning Officer Mr Steve Rumbelow who then drew lots resulting in Paul Reynolds emerging victorious.
Four voters – Michelle Pilling, Scott Atkinson, Susan McDevitt and Iain Smith – challenged the result of the poll, but now face £30,000 in legal cost bills after judges Mr Justice Tugendhat and Mr Justice Blake ruled the disputed ballot paper had been rightly counted in Mr Reynolds' favour.
Burnley Council Chief Executive Mr Rumbelow claimed the petitioners did not get proper legal advice and had been "cajoled into going on a fishing trip".
He said: "Four citizens of Burnley have been put in a position where they face substantial costs, which could have been avoided. The fact that it's four individuals means the British National Party isn't liable for any of the costs despite the fact they've been using this for party political means."
The four petitioners had originally disputed the validity of three ballot papers, but the challenge of two ballots was withdrawn. The disputed ballot paper had a diagonal mark in the left hand column beside the number of the Labour candidate – rather than a cross in the right hand column – but judges ruled the Returning Officer had rightly discerned the voter's intention to cast his vote for Labour.
Labour group leader Coun. Andy Tatchell said: "We are understandably pleased at the decision. Paul Reynolds has done a good job despite the distractions. We were happy on the day that everything was done within the regulations and were rather bewildered that an appeal was made."
Defeated Mr Rowe said: "I'm not sorry we brought this case. I think it is good we brought it because it establishes what the law is. I don't want to be on bad terms with Mr Reynolds because a time may come when we will both be councillors. Until I see the reasoned judgement, I don't know whether we're going to appeal."
Burnley Express
Labels:
BNP,
Burnley,
High Court,
John Rowe,
Paul Reynolds
October 18, 2007
Former BNP councillor admits defeat
A British National Party councillor kicked off Sandwell Council for missing meetings today admitted defeat after learning he faces crippling legal costs to win back his seat.
Coun James Lloyd, BNP member for Princes End in Tipton, has been disqualified from office after missing meetings for six months and failing to give an explanation. Today it was revealed that Coun Lloyd's only hope of winning the legal fight could be going to the High Court, which he said was out of the question.
Neeraj Sharma, Sandwell Council's monitoring officer, said today: "We have told Coun Lloyd the legislation under which he ceases to be a member of the local authority and suggested to him that he might consider taking independent legal advice. We are not aware of any direct right of appeal under the current legislative provisions. However, the High Court of course has inherent jurisdiction over such matters."
Coun Lloyd, who was the former leader of the BNP in Sandwell and was elected to the local authority in 2004, told the Black Country Mail today there was no way he could afford a costly legal battle.
"I am afraid that's it as far as I am concerned," he said. "I am very disappointed with the members services department on the council. I would have thought they might have given me a quick phone call to warn me about falling foul of this six-month rule. All this has come completely out of the blue and I have been stitched up like a kipper. It looks like I am going to have to accept what has happened and bite the bullet. I certainly cannot afford to pay thousands of pounds a day for a High Court hearing. I am off the council for now but if the BNP selects me I shall certainly be fighting again at the local elections next May."
Coun Lloyd's disqualification from the council was part of a double setback for the BNP in Sandwell, coming hot on the heels of the resignation of Coun Simon Smith who revealed he has become an Independent.
Birmingham Mail
Coun James Lloyd, BNP member for Princes End in Tipton, has been disqualified from office after missing meetings for six months and failing to give an explanation. Today it was revealed that Coun Lloyd's only hope of winning the legal fight could be going to the High Court, which he said was out of the question.
Neeraj Sharma, Sandwell Council's monitoring officer, said today: "We have told Coun Lloyd the legislation under which he ceases to be a member of the local authority and suggested to him that he might consider taking independent legal advice. We are not aware of any direct right of appeal under the current legislative provisions. However, the High Court of course has inherent jurisdiction over such matters."
Coun Lloyd, who was the former leader of the BNP in Sandwell and was elected to the local authority in 2004, told the Black Country Mail today there was no way he could afford a costly legal battle.
"I am afraid that's it as far as I am concerned," he said. "I am very disappointed with the members services department on the council. I would have thought they might have given me a quick phone call to warn me about falling foul of this six-month rule. All this has come completely out of the blue and I have been stitched up like a kipper. It looks like I am going to have to accept what has happened and bite the bullet. I certainly cannot afford to pay thousands of pounds a day for a High Court hearing. I am off the council for now but if the BNP selects me I shall certainly be fighting again at the local elections next May."
Coun Lloyd's disqualification from the council was part of a double setback for the BNP in Sandwell, coming hot on the heels of the resignation of Coun Simon Smith who revealed he has become an Independent.
Birmingham Mail
Labels:
BNP,
High Court,
James Lloyd,
Sandwell,
Simon Smith,
Tipton
September 13, 2007
BNP candidate wins High Court recount ruling
The British National Party's hopes of belatedly winning a seat on Burnley Borough Council have risen after the High Court ordered a ballot recount.
BNP candidate Peter John Rowe won the court order for a recount for the Rosegrove and Lowerhouse ward after doubts were raised over the validity of a single vote which decided the election in Labour's favour.
The May 3 council election ended in a tied result between Mr Rowe and the Labour candidate Paul Reynolds. The returning officer then cast lots and declared Mr Reynolds the winner. Mr Rowe went to the High Court in London and asked Mr Justice Irwin for a recount. He said he was acting on behalf of voters who had expressed disquiet about the outcome.
Jason Copple, the returning officer's barrister, denied any mistakes had been made in scrutinising the votes, but suggested there should be a search for one particular ballot paper which had been allowed in Mr Reynolds' favour. The judge was told the vote in question had a diagonal mark in the left hand column against the number of the Labour candidate, rather than a cross in the right-hand column.
Mr Justice Irwin ordered a "thorough recount" instead of just "fishing" for the one suspect ballot paper. The recount will be on an unspecified date and supervised by a senior court official.
Mr Rowe, 51, said after today's hearing: "I think it was a very fair judgment in what is an unprecedented case. This one vote for the Labour Party should never have been counted. I am not alleging it was a 'fix' - the Labour Party were very lucky. But now the ballot papers will have to be transported to London and gone through."
24dash
BNP candidate Peter John Rowe won the court order for a recount for the Rosegrove and Lowerhouse ward after doubts were raised over the validity of a single vote which decided the election in Labour's favour.
The May 3 council election ended in a tied result between Mr Rowe and the Labour candidate Paul Reynolds. The returning officer then cast lots and declared Mr Reynolds the winner. Mr Rowe went to the High Court in London and asked Mr Justice Irwin for a recount. He said he was acting on behalf of voters who had expressed disquiet about the outcome.
Jason Copple, the returning officer's barrister, denied any mistakes had been made in scrutinising the votes, but suggested there should be a search for one particular ballot paper which had been allowed in Mr Reynolds' favour. The judge was told the vote in question had a diagonal mark in the left hand column against the number of the Labour candidate, rather than a cross in the right-hand column.
Mr Justice Irwin ordered a "thorough recount" instead of just "fishing" for the one suspect ballot paper. The recount will be on an unspecified date and supervised by a senior court official.
Mr Rowe, 51, said after today's hearing: "I think it was a very fair judgment in what is an unprecedented case. This one vote for the Labour Party should never have been counted. I am not alleging it was a 'fix' - the Labour Party were very lucky. But now the ballot papers will have to be transported to London and gone through."
24dash
July 30, 2007
Row over poll due to end
A legal challenge to the controversial end of a Burnley Council election count was today due to be made in the High Court.
The British National Party will discover today if a full court hearing will be staged into the Rosegrove with Lowerhouse ballot in May. Lawyers representing four named voters will argue that their case against Paul Reynolds, who won the ballot by drawing lots, should be contested at trial.
After a recount, BNP candidate Peter Rowe and Labour's Mr Reynolds were found to have polled 489 votes each in the neck-and-neck Rosegrove ballot, On the first count, Mr Reynolds, of Florence Street, Burnley, polled two less votes than Mr Rowe, of Cowper Street. But the recount unearthed one Labour vote, thought to have been miscounted as a Conservative vote, and one ballot paper, at first believed to be void, which was reinstated in favour of Mr Reynolds.
With the election tied the two men drew lots from a ballot box and Mr Rowe lost.
Last May a petition signed by Michelle Pilling, Scott Atkinson, Susan McDevitt and Ian Smith was lodged with Manchester County Court, disputing the outcome. This legal challenge has now reached the High Court and is set to be heard by Mr Justice Teare in courtroom number 25 today. The high court judge will decided whether the case merits a full trial hearing at a later date.
Returning officer Steve Rumbelow, Burnley Council's chief executive, has previously insisted that the correct procedures were followed at the May count.
Coun Reynolds was unavailable for comment. But Coun Lilian Clark, who serves for Labour with Coun Reynolds in Rosegrove with Lowerhouse, accused the BNP of trying to court publicity through the challenge. She said: "I don't really see any other reason for them doing it because I don't see how they have anything to gain."
But Coun Sharon Wilkinson, who leads the BNP group on the council, said: "It's the electors themselves who are petitioning and they obviously feel that the result was inconclusive. I hope they will find that something can be done about that."
Whatever the outcome of the case it will not alter the overall balance of power in Burnley. Either way the ruling Lib Dem and Tory alliance will still hold enough combined seats to retain overall control. The Labour party currently has 17 councillors and the BNP just four, after losing two further seats in the May polls.
Lancashire Evening Telegraph
The British National Party will discover today if a full court hearing will be staged into the Rosegrove with Lowerhouse ballot in May. Lawyers representing four named voters will argue that their case against Paul Reynolds, who won the ballot by drawing lots, should be contested at trial.
After a recount, BNP candidate Peter Rowe and Labour's Mr Reynolds were found to have polled 489 votes each in the neck-and-neck Rosegrove ballot, On the first count, Mr Reynolds, of Florence Street, Burnley, polled two less votes than Mr Rowe, of Cowper Street. But the recount unearthed one Labour vote, thought to have been miscounted as a Conservative vote, and one ballot paper, at first believed to be void, which was reinstated in favour of Mr Reynolds.
With the election tied the two men drew lots from a ballot box and Mr Rowe lost.
Last May a petition signed by Michelle Pilling, Scott Atkinson, Susan McDevitt and Ian Smith was lodged with Manchester County Court, disputing the outcome. This legal challenge has now reached the High Court and is set to be heard by Mr Justice Teare in courtroom number 25 today. The high court judge will decided whether the case merits a full trial hearing at a later date.
Returning officer Steve Rumbelow, Burnley Council's chief executive, has previously insisted that the correct procedures were followed at the May count.
Coun Reynolds was unavailable for comment. But Coun Lilian Clark, who serves for Labour with Coun Reynolds in Rosegrove with Lowerhouse, accused the BNP of trying to court publicity through the challenge. She said: "I don't really see any other reason for them doing it because I don't see how they have anything to gain."
But Coun Sharon Wilkinson, who leads the BNP group on the council, said: "It's the electors themselves who are petitioning and they obviously feel that the result was inconclusive. I hope they will find that something can be done about that."
Whatever the outcome of the case it will not alter the overall balance of power in Burnley. Either way the ruling Lib Dem and Tory alliance will still hold enough combined seats to retain overall control. The Labour party currently has 17 councillors and the BNP just four, after losing two further seats in the May polls.
Lancashire Evening Telegraph
Labels:
BNP,
Burnley,
High Court,
Sharon Wilkinson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
