Ian, on the issue of a re-run, I wrote a post on this on my Facebook wall for my friends (and purely as an academic exercise as I doubt any such re-run will happen). As Guy said, his legs cannot take it and I'm sure nobody's legs can take it - so, let's let him get on with the job. However, in the event some may find it interesting, the legal framework is as follows (as pasted from my original Facebook post); ------------------------------------------------------BRENTFORD BY-ELECTION: susceptible to legal challenge?This is purely academic as, despite the situation which ensued (outlined below), I doubt the result would have been substantially different. Having said that, had the result been closer, the following may be pertinent.Entire roads in Brentford did not receive poll cards and very few people even knew that there was a by-election. Braemar Road did not receive polling cards nor did Mafeking Avenue and many many more. The Council has apologised and has even published a list of roads which did not receive polling cards.However, individuals on community forums have now confirmed that their own road/street did not receive polling cards and these new roads are not on the Council's list.This, added to the fact that there was a lowly 22% turnout (rounded off) and only 16% turnout on the day (excluding these ghastly postal votes) is a clear indicator that many did not know about the by-election.WHAT ARE THE LEGAL GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGING AN ELECTION RESULT?The law is contained in the Representation of the People Act 1983 (RPA 1983).The grounds for bringing an election petition in the UK are not clearly defined in legislation but the relevant section is Section 127 of the RPA 1983.Section 127 of RPA 1983 states that;An election under the local government Act may be questioned on the ground that the person whose election is questioned—(a) was at the time of the election disqualified, or(b) was not duly elected,or on the ground that the election was avoided by corrupt or illegal practices or on the grounds provided by section 164 or section 165 below, and shall not be questioned on any of those grounds except by an election petition.Of course, subsection A does not apply.The last ground on corrupt or illegal practices (God knows why this was not placed in a subsection C but, instead, dangles alone) does not apply either in this case.On a side note, for those who followed the Lutfur Rahman case, he was ordered to step down under this last ground - corrupt or illegal practices which includes bribery, intimidation and playing the race card.So, which potential ground could apply here?Perhaps subsection B - was not "duly elected". Of course, the term "duly elected" is broad. It does not refer to the Returning Officer making a mistake or reading out the wrong name or shaking the hand of the wrong person.To be not "duly elected", at one level, refers to not actually being elected numerically. Thus, an election court can decide to count the ballot papers.However, the case-law has also held that some procedural irregularity in the election process could also lead to a verdict that one was not "duly elected".In my mind, a failure to send out polling cards to a substantial chunk of the electorate falls under that procedural irregularity.Of course, one can vote without a polling card. That is not the argument. The argument is that the polling card alerts people to the existence of an election and provides details of polling station venue, the date, the time etc. A candidate's election literature will not want to waste column inches dealing with those things as it is expected that the polling card will do so.As with most things, there is not clear cut answer and any challenge on these grounds will spin on its facts, the degree of the procedural irregularity and the closeness of the result (which, in this case, was not too close in any event).-----------------------------------------
Fadi Farhat ● 3850d