This is a guest post by Andy Erlam, one of the four Tower Hamlets election petitioners (along with Debbie Simone, Azmal Hussain and Angela Moffat). It’s a response to my blog post yesterday, here.
It is kind of Ted Jeory to give some more uninvited advice about how we best manage the Election Petition case. However, we are sure Commissioner Mawrey QC does not need his instructions interpreted by Ted.
The Commissioner has announced that he may allow statements to be included in the case without the names and addresses being revealed to Lutfur Rahman or John Williams or their legal teams. This is a significant development which we had a duty to inform the press and the public of.
There are some other inaccuracies in Ted’s account, which is not surprising as he did not attend the Press Conference.
Who did attend, we are told, was a spy for Lutfur Rahman, an uninvited solicitor, a trespasser in fact, so Ted may wish to check with him/her.
The comment made by Janet Digby-Baker OBE was slightly misquoted. The case she was referring to was another case and she made it to illustrate how nasty intimidation can become.
Of course, the intimidation and the threatening of witnesses is itself an extremely serious criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment on conviction.
This is the worst way to show contempt for the court and we will not shy away from reporting each and every reported incident to both the court and to the police and carefully monitor progress of any investigation. The police have not yet covered themselves in glory in this case, but we live in hope.
We will respect the court but we expect our opponents to respect the people.
The Scrutiny of the entire mayor election vote starts in the High Court on Monday morning November 3 and as it takes place in the Royal Court of Justice, we can expect that it will be a sedate affair with special care taken towards transparency and due process.
We leave it to your readers to decide whether this will be better than the Tower Hamlets election count of May 23-27.
Instead of sniping from the sidelines, Ted should get back to some quality investigative journalism:
Who is financing Lutfur’s hugely expensive legal team?
Are we certain the Tower Hamlets ratepayer isn’t somehow financing Lutfur’s legal team?
What does the PwC report show and recommend?
Surely a leak from PwC can be organised? I am reliably informed that LBTH has tried to “lean” on PwC which if true is surely another gross miscalculation.
Ted predicted wrongly that we would be laughed out of court at the initial High Court hearing in July.
In fact, the unwise attempt to have the case struck-out supported by 10 QCs and solicitors (yes 10 and some paid for by the tax payer) against our brilliant barrister, Francis Hoar, was thrown out of court.
A further High Court Challenge over the PwC report, also paid for by the Tower Hamlets taxpayer, was later rejected by another judge as “hopeless”.
That has not deterred the mayor from seeking another expensive oral hearing which will take place on November 14.
Ted may be impressed by famous QCs but we will not be intimidated. Taking on hugely expensive lawyers is not a sign of strength, but of weakness.
We are not frightened of anyone.
Comment by Ted Jeory: I’m a bit puzzled that a petitioner who is going to court over allegations of impropriety is urging someone in PwC to leak an official report. I think Andy is right to ask who is funding Lutfur’s legal team; maybe he should set down a marker and fully disclose who is funding his own team.
I maintain that the petitioners are brave…but they’d perhaps be wiser to do their talking in the courtroom (as I think Richard Mawrey QC would prefer).
Trial by Jeory 
Brave, yes. But more in the ‘Yes Minister’ sense I think.
The sooner all this is over the better. Accountability and transparency are massively lacking in LBTH and if the PwC/Pickles investigation helps to bring both accountability and transparency back to local government in this part of east london then that will do it for me.
An edit that’s QC not WC at the end, isn’t it?
Laughing. Yes, done. Thanks.
May we see the text (Statement of Claim, effectively) of the Election Petition ?
What is happening at the RCJ on 3rd November ? A re-count / examination of the ballot papers ?
What is the name of the uninvited solicitor ?
10 QCs: How many solicitors, how many non-QC barristers and how many actual QCs were opposing the Petition ?
The police are notoriously reluctant to act against the interests of the local government institution and its senior people. There are too many personal friendships and much mutual admiration between individuals in both organisations. It is a potentially corrupt atmosphere. Nothing is likely to improve until the police are ridiculed or criticised by the Court.
Whether you win or loose, congratulations for speaking-out in favour of Free and Fair Elections – a basic Human Right which came from the Council of Europe and is now a condition of EU membership.
Curious Cat.
There was one QC for Lutfur in court for the interlocutory applications and another for John Williams.
What’s going on at the RCJ is a recount with scrutiny – which is a bigger thing than just a recount. They will also be checking that each vote was properly issued to someone who was properly on the electoral register, and reserving any whose eligibility is challenged for further hearing.
Where did you hear that, David?
I understood that Mr Mawrey had directed there would be no recount at all.
So it’s a scrutiny without recount – which is a smaller thing than just a recount.
I don’t have a copy of any decision by Commissioner Mawrey, so I’m trying to base it on experience and on the allegations in the petition and the further and better particulars.
The petitioners ask “That it may be ordered that there be a scrutiny or re-count of votes recorded as having been cast in the election”. As one of the allegations is that 47 votes were put into a bundle purporting to contain 50, a recount could be called for, although it would considerably add to the costs. However it might be waived in the light of the large number of bogus vote allegations.
Incidentally the text of the petition is here: http://towerhamletselectionpetition.org/assets/ElectionPetition.pdf
OK. Well I understand that that request was refused by the Commissioner. I’m sure if I’m wrong Mr Erlam will not hesitate to correct me.
Thanks David.
Its definitely entering the ‘serious’ stage.
Curious Cat.
P.S. I remember you from 20 years ago on uk,misc/uk.legal – great that you are still around, still doing your elections stuff.
It’s all falling apart. They are now accusing LBTH of intimidating the accountants of PWC. Allegations fly all over the place with these people. As for the solicitor attending a press conference, wouldn’t that, by its nature, be a public event? How could this person be a trespasser at a public event?
Yes, the mentality is simply bizarre. I think there are interesting grounds in the petition but they need to keep quiet and not come over as conspiracy theorists
Dan I don’t know why you think its all falling apart, and more bizarrely I don’t understand why you seem to want it to fall apart?
I’ve heard that the combination of the Petition and PwC is making poor Uncle Lutfur very uncomfortable indeed! Ha Ha Ha!
As for ‘these people’: this was a post from ANDY ERLAM, he is one person and its his take on things, there’s no such thing as a collective ‘these people’ apart from the fact that we 4 are signed collectively to the petition.
To be picky – the uninvited solicitor could be technically labelled a ‘trespasser’. It was an ‘Invited’ press conference, held in Azmal’s restaurant. If someone wasn’t invited to the press conference they shouldn’t have been there, so they were in a sense trespassing.
‘I’ve heard that the combination of the Petition and PwC is making poor Uncle Lutfur very uncomfortable indeed! Ha Ha Ha!’
My word. I know Hallowe’en is upon us but still… Sheds some light on your own motivations at any rate. Sounds like you took rejection by the people of Canary Wharf fairly badly, Debbie.
Oldford1
I am baffled. How does Debbie’s comment “Sheds some light on [her] own motivations at any rate” ?
We all know Debbie is unlikely to send Son of Labour a Christmas card. I hope that won’t distress him too much.
What has Son of Labour’s PWC and High Court ongoing experiences to do with Debbie’s election result ? You’re not suggesting voters voted to bring-in PWC, are you ?
Curious Cat.
What would be the justification for any solicitor to attend a Press Briefing except to attempt to discover their opponents case ?
That suggests the Defendants are worried – else they would never have bothered.
Curious Cat.
Maybe to see whether they were going to invent a phantom ‘Ruling’ that the Commissioner had not made? See here: https://trialbyjeory.com/2014/10/29/tower-hamlets-election-petition-updates-lutfur-hires-rebekah-brooks-barrister-jonathan-laidlaw-qc/
Hosting a blog post by somebody who snipes at the host and then goes on to say say something seriously inappropriate just seems really perverse to me.
Ted – given that this is all about elections – are you going to demonstrate a balanced journalistic perspective and invite a guest post by Lutfur Rahman next – and allow the sniping to continue?
Maybe John Williams has something to say?
How about if the relevant parties use their own channels/websites/blogs/whatever to disseminate their personal perspectives and this blog maintains an independent and objective distance?
Or, alternatively, the parties could just use the comments system like everybody else?
Or, maybe even use the Election Court as the place to air their grievances? Just a thought.
Re. the Press Conference
* WHO held the Press Conference (one petitioner or four?) and
* HOW can you call something a Press Conference if it’s not open to the press?
Excellent idea.
Let’s ask kind Ted to invite Mr Lutfur Rahman to submit a . I am sure Mr Rahman he will get many responses.
Since when has a practising solicitor been, in the widest possible meaning of the term, a ?
Press conferences are usually open to members of the press/media and at special events restricted to those who pre-register. The last time I spoke to Buckingham Palace about a press invitation that was the case – no last-minute gate crashing – not even by practising solicitors holding a brand new notepad and a copy of Teach Yourself Shorthand !
Curious Cat.
Is he still a solicitor. Can someone check with the Law society? Also, is Old Ford1 still a fan of Lutfur or is he/she beginning to see the ave backed the wrong horse?
Oldford1 has never been wrong in his whole life. He is ineffable. He can’t change his opinion we all must change ours!
Test message 12345.
test
Dave,
Please tell us the solicitor’s name.
WordPress is currently blocking all postings mentioning the Law Society’s solicitors look-up hence the test postings.
The URL is
http://so-lici-tors.law-soc-iety.org.uk/?Pro=True
remove the hyphens
Curious Cat
You could also ask why John Williams was put in charge wasn’t it formerly the chief Exec?
=> Jane
http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/idoc.ashx%3Fdocid%3D27e4c900-761b-4db6-aae4-fb74ddf5b22f%26version%3D-1
LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS
MINUTES OF THE GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE
HELD AT 7.00 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, 18 DECEMBER 2013
Officers Present:
John Williams : Service Head, Democratic Services, Chief Executive’s
————————————
In most English local authorities, voting matters, are grouped with councillors services and labelled Democrat Services. In most English local authorities, the Returning Officer, or Acting Returning Office is:-
* Head of Paid Service (the official statutory title for the council’s Managing Director (a Tory habit), Chief Executive or other title).
* Deputy or Assistant Chief Executive
* Monitoring Officer (another of the 3 statutory posts).
In my limited experience, putting the as the Returning Officer is strange, but ………… this is, after all, the wonderful world of Tower Hamlets 🙂
Curious Cat
So what happens if Earlm & Co loose this case? Do they end up picking up Mayor’s legal bill? Hope they all have their assets protected as they could be knocking on Lutfur’s door for a homeless place next year.
Tut tut Imran,
All Mayoral expenses are borne by the plebs who pay Council Tax.
All Rahman (in his legal personality of being a candidate) expenses in the civil case (The Election Petition) are either borne by himself and/or his backers. If he wins, he can make a separate court application for his costs to be paid by his unsuccessful opponents.
Curious Cat.
I think you mean “lose” not ” loose” Imran.