You may well have read yesterday that Richard Mawrey QC, the judge in the forthcoming Election Court petition for Tower Hamlets, had apparently intervened following allegations of witness intimidation.
The petitioners had hosted a press conference in Brick Lane on Monday evening to outline their concerns.
The petitioner’s chair, Dame Janet Digby-Baker, who runs a fostering agency in Mile End, said they had been told by at least one witness that their families in Bangladesh would “would be hurt” or even “killed” if they did not withdraw their statements.
According to a thoroughly confused report of the press conference by Breitbart London, here, these allegations had caused Mr Mawrey to make a ruling that “witnesses’ names and addresses will no longer be made public”.
An accurate report appeared online at The Wharf, where Rob Virtue wrote:
Petitioner Andy Erlam said another man who had complained to the petition that his postal ballot paper had been stolen had been “approached by strangers six or seven times on the street and aggressively confronted about ‘why he was attacking the mayor'”.
“I’ve seen he’s partially withdrawn his statement in evidence,” said Mr Erlam. “Why would someone complain to the police, talk openly to us, although nervous and frightened and then withdraw? It is something we’re going to have to sort out in court.”
Mr Erlam said Richard Mawrey QC, the Commissioner in the trial, had this week made the decision to allow anonymous witness statements in light of the accusations The group also appealed for victims of intimidation to contact the police.
The petitioners made clear that they were not in any way connecting Mayor Lutfur Rahman to the allegations.
Their claims at the press conference were based on an email Mr Mawrey had sent to the petition parties on Monday, when he wrote:
…I have the power in circumstances where I feel that a witness may be subject to intimidation or reprisal if he gives evidence to allow that witness to give evidence with his identity disclosed only to to the court and not to the other parties (or to the other parties’ lawyers only). I have exercised that power in the past and would do so again.
As a result of the news reports, Mr Mawrey, who is surely now beginning to realise what it’s like operating in Tower Hamlets, today sent a further email to the parties to the record straight.
He wrote:
If, at he hearing, I am satisfied that there has been or may be a risk of intimidation, I have the power to hear evidence in camera or to permit identities of witnesses to be withheld from the parties and the public.
I have not, of course, said that I am currently satisfied that there is such a risk or that I shall make any such order and I hope this is clear to all parties.
This appears to be a judicial expression of judicial irritation.
The petitioners might not have judged Monday’s public move particularly well. In his first directions order at the outset of the proceedings, Mr Mawrey wrote:
I appreciate that this petition is hotly contested and all parties feel strongly about the issues raised in it.
I would strongly counsel the parties (and that includes the second respondent) not to attempt to fight these battles in the media, social or otherwise. [My italics]
The issues are now sub judice and I consider that they should be treated as such even though petitions do not involve juries.
The petitioners may have “missed the memo”, so to speak.
As it happens, they may well have to up their game because Lutfur has just appointed a new barrister.
Jonathan Laidlaw QC, described (on his chambers’ website) as “one of the country’s leading silks”, is now acting alongside his more longstanding counsel, Helen Mountfield QC.
-
- Jonathan Laidlaw QC, c/o 2 Hare Court Chambers
-
- Helen Mountfield QC, c/o Matrix Chambers
Laidlaw, who successfully defended former News International boss Rebekah Brooks in the phone hacking trial, has been hired to provide clout on some of the allegations of criminality in the petition.
Mountfield, who acted successfully for Lib Dem Elwyn Watkins against Labour’s Phil Woolas in the 2010 Oldham East Election Court petition, is considered more of a public law specialist.
It’s not yet clear whether both will act during the court hearing itself, which is expected in the New Year. It depends on which parts of the petition Mr Mawrey allows through to the courtroom.
It’s also worth noting that both silks are extremely expensive, Laidlaw particularly so.
And it’s also worth re-emphasising their fees will not be paid from public funds.
This is entirely a private risk for Lutfur, who faces possible bankruptcy if he loses.
However, he has set up a fighting fund to help cover his legal fees. I don’t know how much he’s raised or who the donors are.
Neither am I clear whether the fund or its backers must be declared publicly, eg on Lutfur’s register of interests. Can anyone help with this?
If they are representing Lutfur then he as a private citizen doesn’t, as far as I know, have to divulge where the money is coming from. It’s his business. How much and our do they charge?
Perhaps a document in the below link answers the question?
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0019/13708/026-regulated-donees-guidance-final.pdf
Interesting, thanks Ted. Looks like Mr Irlam will need to get his act together a little; his campaign has seemed a little ramshackle thus far, and with those two QC’s he will be up against some stern opposition. However the fact that The Despicable Rahman et al are willing to issue threats suggests that Irlam is not barking up entirely the wrong tree.
Tim.
What fact?
Tim, the post makes clear Lutfur isn’t the subject of these allegations. Be careful in what you say please. Thanks.
Ted,
I’ve no desire to get your blog into trouble (and am well aware of the transferred liability of hosting libellous comments on blogs.) However the statement as reported, namely that the threatened man was asked “why he was attacking the mayor”, rather suggests that Lutfur IS the subject of the allegations.
However if you think my comment to be a bit rich then please do remove it.
Tim.
But the allegation is that a threat was issued and there is no suggestion, let alone evidence, that Lutfur issued that threat.
Ted,
You are right, with a strict understanding of the phrase ‘subject of the allegations’, and I wasn’t being so strict.
However the wording of the alleged threat strongly suggests that Lutfur is implicated in the allegation.
As I said, if my original comment was a bit too rich then please do remove it. However I stand by the spirit of it, particularly as it referred to Lutfur et al.
Tim.
P.S. As an aside, I’d love to know how to do italics (and bold) properly in my posts on here. If anyone can enlighten me I’d be grateful.
Tim,
BOLD is
open-angular-bracket B close-angular-bracket
……. text …….
open-angular-bracket /B close-angular-bracket
Italic
ditto i …… text …… /i
underline
ditto u …text….. /u
open-angular-bracket blockquote close-angular-bracket
……. text ………………
open-angular-bracket /blockquote close-angular-bracket
Note no spaces between the angular brackets and the codes, b, /b, i, /i, u, /u, blockquote, /blockquote
The codes are standard HTML codes used to create web sites.
Not all the HTML codes work because WordPress excludes some of them.
Hope that helps.
Curious Cat
TEST POST
BOLD
<Italic
Did this work?
Tim.
ANOTHER TEST POST
Don’t know why Italic didn’t work in the last one. Is there any way of seeing what your formatting will look like before you post it? It’s a very cumbersome way of writing, but I guess someone had their reasons for making it like this.
Not italic. Italic. Not Italic.
Tim.
FINAL TEST POST
Thanks CC. Looks like I can get the hang of it. Thanks for your help.
(Ted, you can delete these posts as well if you want!)
Tim.
Wow! How proud we should be of our petitioners. Lutfur must be feeling so confident of winning that he hires the greatest in the land to defend himself. his total arrogance beggars belief. I bet these lawyers are not on minimum wage!
If Lutfur is a bankrupt after this is he barred from public office?
No, don’t think so. The last time I looked only members of the GLA were barred.
CC.
Surely Councillors are? I’m fairly sure about that.
The last time I looked at the law, about 2 or 3 years ago, local authority councillors were not disqualified from office. Bankruptcy lasts, in normal circumstances, 1 year. The exception were Greater London Authority (GLA) councillors who were disqualified. Elected executive mayors might be another exception.
Curious Cat.
Ted – could you get somebody to give you a definitive statement as to what the law says re “supporters” and in what context it applies – specifically in relation to a disputed election.
I seem to recall when this matter came up and was discussed first time around on this blog that we discussed at some length the matter of fact that the candidate is held responsible not only for his own actions but also those of his supporters.
So my question would be
“At what point in a matter of a disputed election is the law relating to a candidate’s supporters – and their activities (legal or otherwise) – no longer relevant?”
Although a candidate may be responsible for actions done by his/her supporters if he knew, or had cause to know or was recklessly indifferent to knowing but if the actions were done completely without his knowledge and contrary to any instructions he may have given, then the candidate may not be liable. Every case may differ.
CC.
Also – another topic I’d like to hear arguments for an against on – relates to the context of the Election Court
Within that very specific context – should all expenses incurred by candidates in an election still be relevant – including legal fees – and should they still be counted and contained within the allowance allowed?
Or am I just being picky?
Or is this a situation where it’s possible for other individuals to sponsor and/or spend money on the candidate’s behalf – because it might be in their interests – but there is no open and transparent accountability about that funding despite the fact it relates to a disputed election.
I’m not alleging anything. I’m just asking questions…… mainly so I can better understand the status of the Election Court and the various parties involved in an action.
The election is over – finished.
Any post election expenses, i.e. Election Petition, will not be counted towards the election costs which are essentially promoting the candidate to the voters.
CC.
YCMIU
The law doesn’t say anything about ‘supporters’. How could it?
If I support David Cameron, should he be held responsible if I graffiti his name outside the polling station on election day? What if I’m voting in a preferential election and I support UKIP first and Conservatives second? Am I a Conservative ‘supporter’? You catch my drift.
A candidate is responsible in law for his own actions, those of his Electoral Agent, and those of his legal ‘agents’. The latter are people whose actions Lutfur knew of and authorised (or perhaps, because they were so obvious and he willfully turned a blind eye, is deemed to have authorised) to the extent that they should be considered his own actions.
As the question about donations to campaign fund, having looked at the wording of both the Tower Hamlets Declaration of Interests and the Electoral Comm guidance above, it doesn’t look like these would be declarable. Their provenance would, however, have to be fully investigated and ascertained by his solicitors (by reason of anti money-laundering laws) who owe duties as such to the courts and could be struck off for neglecting them.
…and his sponsors or those who provide funding for furthering his political ambition?
Again, I’m only asking a question.
Sorry, didn’t mean to bite your head off 😉
No – only insofar as they also happen to fall within the description above.
I know Richard Mawrey. He is no one’s fool. He has a long and distinguished record of hearing Election Petitions. Those he presides over usually make front-page news and are the main item on television and radio broadcasts.
One may truthfully state he is an Election Petition heavy-weight and chosen for his undoubted ability by 2 High Court judges-of-the-day allocated to deal with such matters.
Please note, the hearing is not a criminal trial – that comes afterwards. It is a private law (i.e. public) hearing of a complaint. However the hearing will inevitably go into substantial details (often assisted by police reports) of the matter.
Throughout the hearing a specialist senior prosecutor (from the CPS) will be observing and making notes.
Witness intimidation is a Contempt of Court and may also be a criminal offence (Attempting/Conspiring to Pervert the Course of Justice). Anyone doing it must be desperate and an utter fool.
Those who fund the defence, even partially, may be called upon to contribute towards ALL the costs if the defendants lose. Every case differs.
Am I alone in thinking some well-known individuals may be especially after the failure to have the Petition application squashed ? No lawyer appearing for either side at such a public exhibition would dream of misleading the court and that includes concealing evidence detrimental to their client.
It will be jolly exciting – I hope the venture will be large enough to accommodate everyone.
Curious Cat.
There are only two Election Commissioners. The other one is representing the Returning Officer against the Petitioners.
Any (suitable) person may be called upon by two High Court Judges to conduct a hearing into an Election Petition. The appointed person is called the Election Commissioner.
There may be two prominent people undertaking such work. However the quantity of possible appointees is not restricted to a total of two persons.
The Returning Officer’s costs regardless of success or failure will come from the Council Tax payers.
Golly. I bet the hearing will be packed with an overflow location full too. It is jolly exciting 🙂
Curious Cat.
I wonder if any of the people/organisations donating money to Lutfur’s “fighting fund” will be financially connected to organisations which have received public money which was personally approved by Lutfur … that would effectively be embezzlement or something wouldn’t it?
Please be careful and try not to libel anyone. It is always better to add something like “I think” or “in my opinion” and not to make a statement of fact that you can not prove. Avoid making serious defamatory innuendos too. Embezzlement is a criminal offence.
Donors to anyone’s officially do so because they have a free choice how to spend their money. Whether or not they received monies from any source is immaterial at this stage – although in criminal proceedings the prosecuting barrister might allege certain things he/her know he/her can not actually prove. They do that to sway the jury and possibly influence the judge.
Curious Cat.
Recirculating the Council’s money in effect. So you do end up paying.
[…] « Tower Hamlets election petition updates: Lutfur hires Rebekah Brooks’ barrister Jonathan Laidl… […]