Tower Hamlets election petitioner Andy Erlam has asked for the following to be published in response to my criticisms of him criticising John Biggs’s response to his original criticism of John. (Deep breath; I think I’ve got that right.)
Here’s his latest statement:
Like every journalist Ted Jeory loves conflict, even where none exists. John Biggs is a consummate politician and obviously relishes robust political debate especially if it leads to the best result. No doubt John is a very capable Member of the London Assembly and of the Police Committee, but he may not be an expert on Election Petitions.
It’s a pity Ted didn’t check some “facts” with me before publication, (we all make mistakes), before giving the wrong impression. The decision to change lawyers was a majority decision. Tower Hamlets First didn’t, of course, field candidates in the European Elections and corruption is less likely there.
The outcome of the hearing at 10am on Monday 28th. July at the Royal Courts of Justice (all welcome) will be decided entirely on the legal arguments put forward by our very able, independent, barrister not on comment made by Ted Jeory, John Biggs, myself or anyone else.
It is important that the Election Petition is free, and seen to be free , from national party political interests but instead representative of the entire electorate of Tower Hamlets. The prize is much, much, bigger than narrow party advantage. It’s about whether democracy matters.
What we can not do is accept statements or donations with strings. Everyone now has a primary duty, not to their political party or their mates, but exclusively to the court.
Incidentally, the many people who have been caught up in wrong-doing have a special incentive to now step forward to make statements. They are protected by the evidence they make to the Election Court, even if they took part in criminal wrong-doing themselves. The police and the Director of Public Prosecutions can not prosecute anyone using evidence produced in the Election Court, (except if purgery is involved, which is fair enough).
All witnesses are thus protected.
My answer to all the critics and “Arm Chair Petitioners” is this: Time will tell who is right and who is wrong.
Rather than engage in conspiracy theories, let’s ask some more questions:
1. Were many council officers told in numerous meetings, where they were treated, to go out and get 100 votes each for Lutfur or else they would be thrown out of their jobs?
2. Were they told that, if elected, John Biggs would sack them?
3. Is there a senior officer at the Town Hall, apart from the Returning Officer, who has had regular contact with DS Neil Smithson who is leading the investigation into alleged criminal election activity and, if so, for what reasons?
It’s the leadership of Tower Hamlets Council that is in trouble. Further revelations in the Sunday Telegraph and the contents of the PWC report will add fuel to the fire.
None of us are soothsayers but we can be allowed to speculate based on known facts and gut feelings: This time, this time, the entire political establishment in Tower Hamlets will fall.
Time will tell.
Andy Erlam
andyerlam@ymail.com
If I may be as so bold to comment on article published on my own blog…there patently is conflict and I know from talking to the people involved there has been genuine unease and disagreement about strategy. But I don’t really need to say that do I?
I asked Andy what he meant by “majority decision” over the sacking of lawyer Gerald Shamash (because I’m not sure that was the case). He declined to comment but instead sent a further and probably final statement, which is below.
On the substance, he outlines or suggests some extremely serious allegations, which, until they are backed by proper evidence in court, border on innuendo. The hearing on July 28 will be fascinating. I genuinely want to know whether there is a case for false statement against the Lutfur camp in respect of smearing John Biggs as a racist.
Here’s Andy’s response to my questions:
Dear Ted,
Thanks for inviting me to comment further.
Just to let you know that I do not wish to comment in detail further on the case. As you know, the Petition is subject to legal proceedings and the details of the allegations and the evidence will be disclosed to the respondents, Mr. Rahman and the Returning Officer, when they are required to be in the Court.
I would, however, like to clarify two points made in your most recent blog on 18th July:
1. Mr. Rahman’s application to strike out the Petition is made on the grounds of its alleged failure to set out in sufficient detail the particulars of the allegations made in the Petition. The Petition was drafted by Gavin Miller QC, while Steel and Shamash were still acting for the Petitioners. The strike-out application has nothing to do with any subsequent developments.
2. Whilst it is of course a matter for the court, the strike-out application is being vigorously opposed and I am advised is unlikely to succeed, as the Court has the jurisdiction to order further particulars once the Petition has been presented.
Yours sincerely,
Andy
You should go to the hearing on 28th July! He says ‘all welcome’! R
This should be interesting – just so long as everybody remembers that a Court does not deal in gut feelings, hearsay, supposition and allegations that lack evidence.
A court only ever deals with proper evidence which can be sworn to in Court. It needs to be both factual (what, where, when, who etc) and correct (i.e. not misleading)
They get very annoyed with those who mislead the court or waste their time if they are unable to present proper evidence. http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/part2/rule5/content.page
Nearly as annoyed as they get with those who commit perjury. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/perjury/
I must confess I expected to see more detail in the petition – but I don’t know how the process works in an Election Court so I’ll just leave that comment out there for others to clarify.
I’ve also just discovered that Misconduct in Public Office is also a very interesting area of the law
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/
From the comments of Erlam above:
“Were many council officers told in numerous meetings, where they were treated, to go out and get 100 votes each for Lutfur or else they would be thrown out of their jobs?”
Just read this slowly and let the utter ridiculousness and meaningless of it sink in.
The sentence I grant you looks as if it has at least one word which needs to be corrected
However it’s a very odd allegation to make and one that I don’t think has surfaced before
The gist of the allegation is apparent – even if the spelling and grammar is atrocious. I guess whether it should be be viewed as ridiculous or meaningless would rather depend on whether or not he has sworn witness statements to this effect?
If he hasn’t got sworn statements from more than one person, I’d say it’s a very silly allegation to make.
Andy Pandy has had one too many sugary candy.
If I knew which court it was I would go. Andy?
Aren’t the listings made public? Try googling the petition names
Have we had this link highlighted before?
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06937.pdf
[quote]Local election petitions
Standard Note: Last updated: Author: Section
SN/PC/06937 15 July 2014 Isobel White Parliament and Constitution Centre
A local election petition has been brought following the elections on 22 May 2014 in Tower Hamlets seeking to have the election of the mayor, Lutfur Rahman, declared void.
This note gives details of the different electoral offences and the procedure for bringing a local election petition. It also gives brief details of previous allegations of electoral abuse in Tower Hamlets.
Library Standard Note 5751, Election petition: Oldham East and Saddleworth, gives details of the use of the Parliamentary election petition process after the general election in 2010 and Standard Note 6255, Election offences since 2010, provides a chronology of allegations of electoral malpractice from 2010 to date.[unquote]
Well,
1. The hearing of an election petition by a lawyer appointed by the High Court is a civil law (also known as private law) matter.
2. I am surprised the QC who allegedly created the Statement of Claim (Petition) did not sign it. It is a bit messy and not the standard of workmanship I would expect from a QC.
3. Lots of specific detail is missing.
4. If Mr Rahman has really applied to strike-out the Claim (Election Petition) on the basis it lacks the necessary details, then he has, in my opinion, erred badly. If Mr Rahman truly believes there is not enough information to incriminate him or his helpers, then there was absolutely no reason for him to fear the Petition – let alone incur costs to get the Petition dismissed. If there is no substance in the Petition’s allegations, then the Court will dismiss the petition free-of-charge for Mr Rahman and without Mr Rahman needing to exert himself.
5. A sceptic might suggest Mr Rahman fears the contents of the Petition because it directly or indirectly can incriminate him and his helpers and place them in conflict with the law. Kill the Petition before the claims can be substantiated – presumably to the Civil standard of proof – and become a real liability ? One never knows what else might emerge if the case gets underway. Election Petition hearings, held locally in TH, can last 2 or 3 weeks.
6. Hearsay is likely to be admitted because the Petition is a private law (civil) case and not a public law (criminal) case.However someone from the DPP’s Office (probably that CPS bloke from York who specialises in election cases) might attend the entire hearing. Despite being a civil case, it is a very serious and formal occasion.
7. I disagree with Andy’s philosophy that “the Court has the jurisdiction to order further particulars once the Petition has been presented.” That is lazy. The Court will naturally expect Andy and Co. to do all the necessary evidence gathering and documenting without being told that work is essential to his Petition.
8. The Hearing will likely be at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand WC2A 2LL. My old list of telephone numbers shows, for the Elections Petition Office,
020 – 7947 7529
020 – 7947 6434
switchboard 020 – 7947 6000
Perhaps Andy will tell us if the hearing is in chambers or in a court room and whether is is before a Master (some of whom are now women) or a Judge.
Curious Cat.
The lawyers row is significant.
Shamash and Millar (shame Andy can’t even spell his own – now former – lawyer’s name) have practiced more election law than any other lawyers in Britain.
They’ll save a lot of money by not having solicitors at all and instructing barrister Francis Hoar directly. He may have been university debating champion of the year. But he’s a junior, not a QC. And he’s never handled an election petition before, ever. His only claim to fame is to have written an article about Phil Woolas.
Junior or not, the criteria is the ability to build a case, articulate it well and persuade the Judge.
If the pleading was drafted by a QC then surely a junior can do better ?
Practising law, at the financial expense of others, is never an automatic guarantee of a quality product – just look at the messy pleading.
Curious Cat.
What a silly silly argument to make. How is a junior better placed to do anything than a QC? How can it not be significant that two of the most experienced QCs when it comes to election petitions have been kicked out and replaced by an inexperienced junior? By the same argument I could be hired by Erlam & Co to go into court in a clown costume – apparently all that matters is ‘the ability to build a case’
I loathe Lutfur and his cronies as much as the next man, but you’re letting that blind you to reality. This petition is going nowhere, and Erlam is busy falling out with everyone while his case falls to bits.
Oh dear me WHS,
What is the difference between barristers, if not ability ? Never mind education, family connections, old-boys network, political parties, universities and skin colours.
Ability in litigation depends, inter alia, on experience.
What is the difference between a so-called junior and a QC ? Well it is being a QC. There is no visible line over which one must cross from being a junior to being a QC. In some jurisdictions the equivalence to QC is called a senior counsel.
Don’t forget when Charlie becomes King, all the QCs will disappear to become KCs.
Examining the quality and the abilities of solicitors, barristers and judges one inevitably notices some are crap, some are nice and some are better than others. It will be immediately apparent to unbiased souls that mere job titles do not distinguish the good from the less good or from the crap.
Now the election petition is, in my honest opinion, a bit messy. I would have done a better job and I’m not even a lawyer.
Job titles can not always properly distinguish the able from the less able and fees demanded by some is no guarantee of Quality.
Curious Cat
P.S. WHS,
There are already too many wearing clown clothing especially at the RCJ. I would ban all wigs and stockings for males.
The ability to build a good case is essential. The messy pleading is a manifestation of muddled thinking and muddled thinkings is never a good indication the customer will win.
I hope the defects or omissions or simply lack of detail in the petition can be rectified for the public good.
Curious Cat.
Did you know an election petition, when being heard in full, has, by law, to be heard in the area of the local authority to which it pertains. The last one in tower hamlets was in the council chamber at mulberry place. And you thought there were a lot of people outside the troxy that night!
Here’s another useful document which will advance our education in this matter.
It’s the Electoral Commission’s Factsheet – “Summary of electoral offences”
I take back my comment about incorrect spelling of a word “treating” has a very specific meaning.
Treating
A person is guilty of treating if either before, during or after an election they directly or indirectly give or provide any food, drink, entertainment or provision to corruptly influence any voter to vote or refrain from voting. Treating requires a corrupt intent – it does not apply to ordinary hospitality
I’m beginning to wonder if these alleged offences related to treating occurred at any sort of rally for Lutfur or maybe some sort of Mosque event.
Possibly said by an agent of Lutfur rather than Lutfur (which I think counts as the same thing?).
One of the other alleged offences relates to false statements – and this is an extract from the Electoral Commission’s summary
False statements
About a candidate’s personal character or conduct
It is an illegal practice to make or publish a false statement of fact about the personal character or conduct of a candidate in order to affect the return of a candidate at an election.
False statements that are not about another candidate’s personal character or conduct are not illegal under electoral law, but could be considered as libel or slander.
I seem to recall people saying that the petition is on much stronger ground on this allegation but I don’t think I’ve seen a summary as to why.
John Biggs states on this blog
“if redress is available by showing that the result was improperly influenced by this claim (about him being a racist), knowing it was false, then it should be available.”
I’m reading this as meaning that the petitioners need to produce:
* evidence of the statement being made
* AND crucially – evidence from voters who were influenced by this claim and who are willing to indicate this to the court.
I find John Biggs further response to Andy Erlam very persuasive in relation to his argument that a clear distinction needs to be made between beliefs and evidence.
“Your claims must be based on evidence which can be persuasive in an election court. You need therefore to use a serious legal team which inspires confidence and encourages others to come forwards, and you, working equally with your other three petitioners, must be open and clear with the people of Tower Hamlets, and respectful of all parts of our community, in making your claim. If you do these things, you will attract support and the likelihood that the truth will be known.”
Incidentally, the law on elections is currently under review. http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/areas/electoral-law.htm
Ted – can I suggest you do a post which focuses on the reasons why Tower Hamlets Council decided not to respond to the formal scoping consultation in 2012 (i.e. what should/should not be included in the reform) – outlining any issues and matters of concern to the Council.
This initial scoping consultation was seen to be a serious matter warranting a response by the London Boroughs of Hackney, Newham and Southwark (amongst others).
I wonder who specifically is responsible for this lack of response from LBTH which seems entirely inappropriate (bordering on negligent) given the extent of challenges relating to Tower Hamlets elections in recent years. Would it be the Mayor or a specific officer? Who would need to sign off the formal response by the Council?
You can read the responses and the consultation analysis at http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/electoral_law_scoping_consultation-analysis.pdf
I trust that the Council will have more serious regard to the detailed consultation paper in late 2014.
I mention this merely because it seems to me to be very relevant to the regard paid by Tower Hamlets Council to the proper conduct of elections.
> Incidentally, the law on elections is currently under review.
> http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/areas/electoral-law.htm
Thanks, very useful. Will make the Law Commission an interested party when I challenge aspects of English election law at the RCJ.
CC.
Just to clarify:
No it was NOT a majority decision!!
If you have 4 people, which is the required number for an election petition, how do you have a majority in favour of changing lawyer when 2 of them don’t agree and want to stay with the same lawyer???
Ignoring all this stupidity going on here on the blog: the petition is a real opportunity to highlight some to the irregularities that have occurred in our borough.
So in the best case scenario the petition can lead to the overturning of the election or having a recount but it can also ‘win’ in other ways: by increasing scrutiny of what is going on here in the borough and leading MORE people ask questions.
Irrespective of the irregularities Lutfur Rahman does command wide support in the Bangladeshi community and the rival parties have had little impact on this during the election campaign.
Moving forward to a more positive politics is a battle for hearts and minds.
=> Someone who knows
Glad you did not object to the non-stupidity 🙂
Surely the mass and local media have already ‘highlighted’ the irregularities ? This blog has. Are there new or unpublished irregularities ?
Admirable sentiment but, it seems to me, no one in the LBTH is capable of leading that overdue improvement. Surely that is the essence of the TH problem : lack of universal vision, lack of universal leadership and lack of a genuine desire to serve ‘all’ the public ? And inspiration and enthusiasm.
TH needs people like you to get involved.
Curious Cat
I can see what Andy means about “armchair petitioners”. Rather reminds me of the Harry Enfield character Mr You-Don’t-Wanna-Do-It-Like-That:
“An infuriating know-it-all father who advised various people with both household tasks and diverse jobs, such as a football pundit”.
Good luck Andy in bringing down Rahman’s administration. We deserve better.
I think the election petition is a hopeless case. No witness statements yet? And just how many TH residents do the petioners think will be prepared to state their names and give evidence in open court? They would need to move to Scotland if they did!
No witness statements, no affirmations and no affidavits spells disaster for the plaintiff (claimant/applicant). me verily thinks.
Curious Cat.
The Judge disagrees with you.
=> Jay Kay,
Ambiguous comments have little practical value at law.
No trial is likely to succeed, in the claimant’s favour, without one of the above.
Which judge? The master or the judge who granted extra time ? The judge who apparently dismissed His Worship’s chuck-out application ? If it was indeed this judge, then please note the judge was not determining the chances of the original cause but solely His Worship’s application.
Do not be so coy JK please tell us more.
Curious Cat.