Richards v Devenish & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns the first petition challenging the result of a constituency election for the Greater London Assembly ("GLA"), specifically the West Central constituency. The election was held on 5 May 2016, and the Petitioner, the Labour Party candidate, lost to the Conservative Party candidate by 14,564 votes. The GLA comprises one directly elected Mayor and 25 Assembly Members, representing 14 constituencies including West Central, which covers affluent areas within the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, Hammersmith & Fulham Council, and Westminster City Council.

The Petitioner presented her petition on 1 June 2016, alleging that the successful candidate was "not duly elected" due to errors in election adjudication. The case was heard over two days in December 2016 at Westminster City Hall. The Greater London Returning Officer ("GLRO") and other election officials were responsible for managing the election, including the use of an electronic counting system procured from IntElect, which had been used in previous elections. The Petitioner had numerous agents and witnesses but did not raise concerns during the election about the counting system or process.

The trial involved extensive witness testimony, including from election officials, political party representatives, and the candidates themselves. The Petitioner advanced various allegations, some extending beyond the formal petition, including claims of vote tampering, election rigging, and political collusion, as well as unrelated personal complaints of harassment and surveillance. The Respondents defended the integrity and conduct of the election.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the successful candidate was "not duly elected" due to errors or irregularities in the conduct or adjudication of the election.
2. Whether any alleged errors or omissions in the election process were sufficient to affect the result, thereby invalidating the election under the Representation of the People Act 1983.
3. The extent to which the court can consider voter behaviour, turnout discrepancies, and other statistical evidence in assessing the validity of the election result.
4. The permissibility and scope of amendments to the Petition after its initial presentation.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Petitioner alleged errors in election adjudication, particularly relating to unusually low voter turnout in the West Central constituency compared to other London constituencies.
• Claims were made regarding possible vote tampering, election rigging, and administrative errors, including concerns about postal voting anomalies and the handling of ballot boxes.
• The Petitioner suggested collusion between election officials and a Labour Party pressure group ("Progress"), asserting a conspiracy to prevent her election.
• She raised issues beyond the Petition's scope, including allegations of harassment, surveillance, and human rights infringements related to her political activism.
• Requested a full scrutiny of electoral returns and rolls, asserting that further investigation was necessary to uncover irregularities.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Respondents maintained that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the law and that no errors or irregularities affected the result.
• They emphasized the experience and professionalism of election officials and the robustness of the electronic counting system and election processes.
• They argued that the Petition's allegations were speculative, unsupported by evidence, and often irrelevant to the legal grounds for challenging the election.
• They rejected claims of collusion and conspiracy as unfounded and lacking any credible proof.
• They contended that statistical differences in turnout and postal voting patterns were explainable by demographic and procedural factors rather than misconduct.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined each allegation raised in the Petition and the evidence presented at trial. It emphasized the statutory framework governing election challenges, particularly the requirement under s48 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 that an election will not be invalidated unless errors affect the result.

The court found that differences in voter turnout and postal voting patterns were explainable by demographic factors, the transient nature of the constituency’s population, and procedural circumstances such as voter registration for the upcoming EU referendum. It accepted the testimony of experienced election officials and agents who confirmed the robustness and professionalism of the election process, including the electronic counting system.

The court rejected speculative and conspiratorial allegations of vote tampering, collusion, and administrative misconduct as unsupported by credible evidence. It noted that the Petitioner failed to comply fully with procedural requirements, including timely submission of evidence and adherence to the Petition’s scope, although she was afforded some leniency as a litigant in person.

The court applied the principle from Baxter v Fear to avoid hypothesizing about voter intentions or turnout beyond the evidence. It concluded that the Petition did not meet the civil standard of proof required to establish that the successful candidate was not duly elected.

Despite some procedural shortcomings in record-keeping regarding ballot box tallies, the court found no statutory breach or invalidation of the election. It recommended improved record-keeping as good practice but emphasized that this did not affect the election’s validity.

Holding and Implications

The court dismissed all aspects of the Petition and declared that the election was duly conducted and valid.

The direct effect of this decision is that the successful candidate’s election stands and is not invalidated. The court’s ruling affirms the application of statutory principles that require substantial compliance with election law and that mere suspicion or speculative allegations are insufficient to overturn election results.

No new legal precedent was established; the opinion reinforces existing doctrines limiting judicial inquiry into voter behaviour and emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance and evidentiary standards in election petitions.