| LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Election — Illegal practices — Expenses exceeding prescribed limit— Failure to return value of services provided free of charge by third party—Application for relief relying on inadvertence — Omission resulting from ignorance of law— Whether ignorance of law constituting “inadvertence”— Representation of the People Act 1983 (as amended by Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, s 134), ss 86, 90C, and 167
Finch and another v Richardson [2008] EWHC 3067 (QB); [2008] WLR (D) 389
QBD: Tugendhat and Underhill JJ : 12 December 2008
For the purposes of provisions in the Representation of the People Act 1983 in relation to illegal practices and to errors or false statements in declarations, ignorance of the law could constitute “inadvertence”so as to provide an excuse for such errors and statements.
The Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division so held when determining a claim for relief by Sir Robert Finch and Richard Henderson-Begg under ss 86 and 167 Representation of the People Act 1983 in relation to excessive expenses incurred in the aldermanic election on 4 June 2008 for the ward of Coleman Street in the City of London.
TUGENDHAT J said that the first claimant had been successful in an aldermanic election, the second claimant being his agent. The claim was for relief under ss 86 and 167 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 in respect of an omission to make the necessary statement and declaration in relation to those expenses. Expenses of £145.38 had been declared, the permitted amount being £305.26. The first claimant, formerly the senior partner of a firm of City solicitors, had become chairman of, and consultant to, Liberty, which provided a car and driver for his use. The driver had provided services in connection with the election for which the first claimant had not made any payments to him or to Liberty. The law had been changed with effect from 1 July 2001 so that, by s 90C of the 1983 Act (inserted by s 134 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000) the expense of services provided free of charge to a candidate at the expense of a third party were to be treated as incurred by the candidate. The value of the car and of the driver’s services was, as revised, £368.59, so the aggregate of the expenses was such that the claimants were guilty of illegal practices contrary to ss 76 and 84 of the 1983 Act. The first claimant stated that the error had been inadvertent because he did not know that the expense had to be included in returns. The second claimant stated that he did not know that the expense had been incurred. The essential submission on behalf of the defendant, the defeated candidate, was that ignorance of the law could not amount to the excuse of inadvertence within the meaning of that term in the Act, at least when committed by a professional person. The point had been discussed in previous cases, particularly in Scotland in Smith and Sloane v MacKenzie [1919] SC 546, and in Northern Ireland in McCrory v Hendron [1993] NI QBD 177, which referred to the decision of McCardie J in Nichol v Fearby [1923] 1 KB 480, which itself referred back to Ex p Walker (1889) 22 QBD 384. The Northern Ireland decision was persuasive that ignorance of the law might be inadvertence. On the facts the commission of illegal practices had been inadvertent on the part of both claimants.
UNDERHILL J agreed.
|
