Election Petition Judgement : Tower Hamlets 2014
 EWHC 1215 (QB)
- 22 May 2014 was Election Day throughout the United Kingdom. There was a
nationwide election for members of the European Parliament. Many local authorities
had council elections and a few local authorities had mayoral elections. The
London Borough of Tower Hamlets had all three. While undoubtedly making practical
sense to hold all the relevant elections on the same day, conducting three
simultaneous polls necessarily presented considerable challenges for returning
officers, both in ensuring that polling proceeded in an orderly and lawful manner
and in arranging for three different sets of ballots to be correctly counted.
- In Tower Hamlets there was a full council election with all 45 seats in 20
wards being contested. Between the 2014 election and its preceding election in
2010 there had been a wholescale re-drawing of the ward boundaries and the
number of wards had been increased from 17 to 20. In most of the wards, there
were candidates from six main parties, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour,
the Green Party, UKIP and a party local to the Borough known as Tower Hamlets
- In the election for Mayor, there were ten candidates, one from each of the
six parties listed above, one from the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition and
three Independent candidates.
- The Mayoral election is conducted on the transferable vote system. Each
elector has two votes and chooses his first and second preferences. The ballot
paper, therefore, lists the candidates in alphabetical order with two columns
of corresponding boxes for the voter to mark first and second preferences. When
the votes come to be counted, the first step is to count the first preference
votes for each candidate. If, at the conclusion of that process, a candidate
has received more than half of the first preference votes cast, that candidate
is elected. If no candidate has received more than half of the first preference
votes, the second stage is, in essence, a run-off between the two candidates
with the most first preference votes. The remaining candidates drop out of the
race and the ballot papers showing their names as first preferences are
re-examined to determine the second preferences shown on those ballot papers.
Second preference votes for candidates other than the two front-runners are
disregarded and the second preference votes for those two are counted and added
to their first preference votes from the initial round. The first and second
preference votes for the two front-runners are then totalled and the candidate
with the higher total declared the winner.
- The drawback of this system is that it is possible for candidate A to receive
49.9% of the first preference against his main rival B's 20% (or even 10%) but
for B to receive all the second preference votes of the eliminated candidates
and to be elected. In effect the election is won by the voters' second choice
- The Tower Hamlets Mayoral election of 2014 turned out to be a two-horse
race, the principal contenders being Mr John Biggs, the Labour Party candidate,
and the outgoing Mayor Mr Lutfur Rahman, the THF candidate.
- At the count following the poll, the first preference votes for those two
Mr Rahman: 36,539 (43.38%)
Mr Biggs: 27,643 (32.82%)
- The candidate coming third, Mr Christopher Wilford (Conservative),
totalled roughly 8.5% and no other candidate received more than 6%. The second
preference votes shown on the ballot papers of the eight eliminated candidates
(to the extent that they were for Mr Biggs or Mr Rahman) were then counted and
added to the total. Though Mr Biggs received approximately eight times as many
second preference votes than Mr Rahman it was not sufficient for him to make up
the gap from the first round. The final result was
Mr Rahman: 36,539 (first) + 856 (second) totalling 37,395
Mr Biggs: 27,643 (first) + 6500 (second) totalling 34,143
Mr Rahman was thus re-elected Mayor of Tower Hamlets.
- As will be seen, both Mr Rahman's campaign and his election had proved
very controversial within the Borough and on 10 June 2014, the four Petitioners
presented a Petition to have the election set aside on several grounds,
principally the alleged commission by the First Respondent (Mr Rahman) or his
agents of corrupt and illegal practices contrary to the Representation of the
People Act 1983 (the 1983 Act'). The Petitioners also alleged that the Second
Respondent, the Returning Officer Mr John Williams, had failed to conduct the
election in accordance with electoral law and that the election should be set
aside on that ground independently of their case against Mr Rahman.
- On 15 July 2014 the First Respondent applied to dismiss the petition
under Rule 13 of the Election Petition Rules 1960 and/or the inherent
jurisdiction of the court for want of particularity and abuse of process. That
application was heard by the Divisional Court  on 28 and 29 July 2014. The Court rejected the
application to strike out the Petition and directed that the Petition should be
heard by an Election Commissioner appointed under the 1983 Act.
- On 29 July 2014 I accepted the appointment as Election Commissioner to
try this Petition.
- Between 3 and 6 November 2014 I conducted the Scrutiny to examine the
original ballot papers and to extract certain ballot papers and other documents
in relation to allegedly false or illegal votes. I thereafter issued my formal
report on its findings.
- The hearing of the Petition commenced on 2 February 2015. On the first
day of the hearing, counsel for the Petitioners and for the Returning Officer
announced that their respective clients had reached an agreement whereby the
Petitioners would no longer pursue their allegations against the Returning
Officer and the Returning Officer undertook that, in the event that the
Petitioners were successful against Mr Rahman, he would not seek an order for
his own costs against them.
- Consequently, the case against the Returning Officer, which mainly turned on
his conduct of the count, was not proceeded with and a great deal of evidence
dealing with the events at the count did not need to be adduced or challenged.
This judgment, therefore, will not need to explore the Returning Officer's
conduct or do more than contain a cursory account of the events following the
close of poll at 10.00 pm on 22 May 2014.
- The trial occupied the court from 2 February to 13 March 2015. Written final
submissions were served on 20 March 2015 and final oral submissions were heard on
24 March 2015.
- The principal counsel for the parties were:
The Petitioners: Mr Francis Hoar
The First Respondent: Mr Duncan Penny QC
The Second Respondent: Mr Timothy Straker QC
I trust both leading counsel will forgive me if I do not repeat
'QC' on each occasion I mention them in the remainder of this judgment.
 Supperstone and Spencer JJ