REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1983 s106 – False statements about a parliamentary candidate – R (on application of Woolas) v Parliamentary Election Council [2010] EWHC 3169.

An elected Labour MP was found to have made three false personal statements about the rival Liberal Democratic candidate and his election was declared void. The Administrative Court upheld the quashing of his election, while the section did not cover false statements about the political opinions of a rival candidates it did cover knowingly false statements about personal facts or personal characteristics relating to such a candidate and the section was not incompatible with Article 10 ECHR 1050 as inhibiting vigorous and robust expression in Parliamentary elections. 

Representation of the People Act 1983 – ss106 & 110 – Director of Public Prosecutions v Edwards [2002] EWHC (Admin, Div Ct.) Lord Woolf of Barnes LCJ & Wright J, 20/3/06

The respondent printed, published, and distributed some 25,000 leaflets on a house to house basis in relation to the conduct of an election of a borough councillor. In the leaflet it was stated that the current Labour councillor and candidate in the current election, while acting as chairman of the council housing committee, had awarded his son-in-law a £125,000 housing contract. This statement was found to be false, and the councillor could not award contracts of his own motion, and the award being a public rather than a personal act did not come within the scope of s106 RPA 1983. Further that the respondent had acted in good faith and was neither a member of a political party or a candidate but merely wished to stimulate public debate in connection with the election and the alleged ‘information’ had been circulating in the public domain for up to three years before the election. The question was, inter alia, whether the allegation of corruption related to the candidate’s personal character or conduct within s106.

The distinction between ‘public’ and ‘private’ acts was not germane – the allegation reflected on and was intended to reflect on the personal character of the councillor and his alleged personal involvement in securing the contract for his son-in-law – the fact that rumours about the matter had been previously circulating was not relevant. On the facts the respondent was clearly guilty.