Key Facts
- •Election petition challenging the results of the Aston Ward local government election held on 5 May 2022.
- •Petitioner, Muhammad Afzal (Labour), came third, alleging the elected Respondents (Liberal Democrats) made false allegations of bribery (distribution of dates).
- •Respondents' evidence included video footage of the Petitioner distributing dates with Labour Party stickers.
- •Petitioner sought to withdraw the petition after seeing the Respondent's evidence.
- •The court considered whether to grant permission to withdraw, balancing public interest in investigating potential election malpractice against efficient use of court resources.
Legal Principles
Withdrawal of an election petition requires leave of the court, considering potential compromise or prevention of evidence in the public interest.
County of Durham (Northern Division): Glaholm and Store V Elliot (1874)
Election Courts have an inquisitorial role to investigate allegations of corrupt or illegal practice in the public interest.
Representation of the People Act 1983 (RPA), section 140; Greene v Forbes [2020] EWHC 676 (QB)
Non-parties must be given the opportunity to be heard before adverse findings are made against them.
RPA, section 160(1); Khan v The Election Commissioner [2005] EWHC 2365 Admin
Consequences of finding corrupt or illegal practices include disqualification from holding elective office.
RPA, section 160(4), (5)
Withdrawal of a petition requires court permission and the petitioner is liable for the respondent's costs.
RPA, section 147
Outcomes
Permission to withdraw the petition was granted.
Overwhelming evidence of illegal election practices (distribution of dates with party stickers) by the Petitioner; Petitioner's age and lack of future electoral ambitions; avoiding lengthy and costly proceedings; alternative avenues for investigation (DPP, police).
Indemnity costs awarded to Respondents up to 6 January 2023; standard basis costs thereafter.
Petitioner's knowingly false allegations and persistence with the petition despite knowing the truth; Respondents' strategic delay in serving evidence, but could have mitigated cost escalation.