As has been mentioned in the comments thread to the last post on this blog, Lutfur Rahman has now lodged his application for a judicial review of the April 23 Election Court verdict.
To recap, he was found guilty on seven of nine counts in the petitioners’ case. His JR seeks to have three overturned.
These relate to the findings of bribery in respect of grants and payments to the media, the payment of canvassers, and of undue spiritual influence.
He is not challenging (and in effect accepts) the finding of false statement (S106 of the Representation of the Peoples Act) against John Biggs (an offence for which he was found personally liable), and various findings of corrupt practices and electoral fraud (fraudulent votes and false registration etc) via his agents.
He is currently banned for five years from holding office because he was found personally guilty of a corrupt practice (bribery). If he overturns this finding his ban will automatically fall to three years, that being the penalty for the other lesser offences.
His ban would then expire April 23, 2018. That would prevent him from standing for mayor that year as the close of nominations for candidates would be a few weeks earlier. However, he would be free to stand as a councillor in a by-election after that date or indeed for Parliament in May 2020.
Ifs, ifs…
As for his hopes of succeeding in the JR, I’m by no means and expert and will leave that to other people to judge or guess. The grounds for his case are outlined in this document: Grounds for JR.
A useful summary is provided on p2 of that document, here:
So he is arguing there are findings of fact by Commissioner Mawrey for which there was no evidential basis in law. His JR also has a human rights flavour to it.
For this, he has hired an extremely heavyweight QC, Ben Emmerson, pictured left, (who I don’t think has much experience of local government or election law, if that matters). Emmerson is the counsel for the current and controversial Child Sex Abuse inquiry.
How much will that cost Lutfur, has been the cry in the comments section on that blog. Well, the answer to that lies in Lutfur’s other ongoing and related predicament: the outstanding cost order against him. You’ll recall that Mawrey ordered Lutfur to pay £250,000 of costs incurred during the Election Court trial. Not a penny of this Judgment Debt has yet been paid.
In court documents prepared for a recent freezing order on his assets (we’ll come to those later), it emerged that he expects his full costs of a judicial review that proceeds to a hearing will be about £160,000. Of that Ben Emmerson QC would collect about £61,000. Lutfur’s solicitors K&L Gates would earn around £55,000, while the junior counsel in the case would pocket about £34,000.
No wonder lawyers love Lutfur. One day, I’ll try and calculate how much his profession has earned from his since the day he took Labour to court in the 2010 mayoral selection process.
He has also engaged another lawyer of (a slightly different) note to help him fight the cost and freezing order: Saghir Hussain (right). He’s also a lawyer specialising in human rights and is based in Whitechapel. He’s also listed as a board member of Cage (formerly Cage Prisoners) and among his former clients was a certain Mohammed Emwazi, aka “Jihadi John”.
He represented Emwazi from 2009 and before he became one of the world’s most wanted. The full details are here. You’ll remember from the controversy earlier this year that Cage claimed that MI5’s hounding of Emwazi was a catalyst in him becoming Islamic State’s poster boy executioner.
Hussain tweeted during the Election Court trial in March that the case against Lutfur was about the Establishment wanting to crush “all uppity Muslims”.
If Lutfur wins his JR, it’s likely the Judgment Debt of £250k will be reduced from its original penalty. In addition (and a lawyer can correct me on this if I’m wrong) the petitioners would also become liable for all or some of his JR costs; I’d imagine they would be offset against the new Judgment Debt.
If he loses the JR his liability to the petitioners increases of course by any money they have to spend on the JR.
So that brings us back to the question of how he’s going to pay for it all. The petitioners lawyers say that he has yet to disclose how much has been donated to the fighting fund set up at the Water Lilly rally in April, a fund being chaired by the suspended Labour NEC member Christine Shawcroft.
There is also a running argument over the Lutfur’s property interests and these have been detailed well by Love Wapping here. Lutfur lives in a six-bedroom family home in Old Montague Street with nine other adults and one child and the petitioners argue that his outgoings towards bills in that house (owned by his father and brother) must be low.
During his time in office his register of interests disclosed he owned two investment properties bought 10 years ago. These are 30 Deal Street in Whitechapel (bought for £272k) and 3 Grace Street, a small terraced house he bought for £230k in Bromley-by-Bow. But his wife now claims she owns all of 30 Deal Street and 74 per cent of 3 Grace Street, so she argues they can’t be used to pay her husband’s debt. She also owns the neighbouring property at 5 Grace Street; Lutfur has not disclosed whether he has any interest in that.
According to Zoopla, 30 Deal Street is now worth about £572k, while 3 Grace St is estimated at about £420k.
Apparently both are rented out. Again according to Zoopla, the estimated annual rents are £26,400 (£2200 per month) and £22,992 (£1916 per month).
The petitioners’ lawyers have alleged Lutfur is trying to hide his assets and are seeking more information about any other large assets he might own. Lutfur has denied this.
It was also alleged in the Election Court that Lutfur owns a stake in the Bangla City Cash and Carry, off Brick Lane in Spitalfields. This stake is estimated at £100k. But Lutfur denies any such stake.
[As an aside, is there an argument for councillors to disclose all properties they own (both in the UK and abroad), not just in the borough in which they serve? How many own properties abroad, e.g. Dubai, I wonder.]
Two weeks ago, High Court judge Mr Justice Edis ordered Lutfur to disclose income and expenditure going back five years. He also froze assets worth £350,000 and required him to disclose tax returns going back seven years. A review of the situation will take place in the near future.
The saga continues.
Trial by Jeory 
The words Dubai and Poplar Town Hall are very much related
Do you mean Banglatown cash and carry?
So which Trot has given this thumbs down? Marc Francis?
How about a few positive Thumbs ?
The owner of Banglatown denies any involvement with Lutfur, can’t stand him and is talking about suing Ted so I would make it clear that the cash and carry was in fact Bangla City which is in the process of becoming a 120 bedroom boutique hotel.
Quite frankly my jaw dropped when you revealed that an eminent human rights lawyer is going to be part of the ex-Mayor’s legal team alongside the lawyer for “Jihadi John”. The latter certainly hasn’t been respecting the human rights – or lives – of British Citizens of late.
What a very odd combination!
Four points, one question and a JR Update
POINTS
* In relation to the disclosure of pecuniary interests, this is what the latest government guidance from the Department for Communities and Local Government states about what Council Members should do
Annex A which defines the nature of the pecuniary interest which must be disclosed limits the interests to Any beneficial interest in land which you, or your spouse or your civil partner, have and which is within the area of your council or authority.
I would suggest the Electoral Court Petitioners and other interested parties might want to go and look at the required public records of the ex-Mayor’s Disclosure of Interests for the last seven years since this MUST include the property interests of his wife and should reveal clearly when this changed if at all.
* Unless this is absolutely standard practice in the context of people failing to make required payments into court – which is entirely possible – law officers requiring the ex-Mayor to reveal his tax affairs for the last seven years makes me wonder whether they think that it’s possible that the ex-Mayor is not being entirely frank and forthcoming about his earnings and his assets. Certainly if his wife is making the case that properties are owned by her – presumably as a gift from her husband – she is going to have to show the proper paperwork which demonstrates that, in tax terms, the properties were a gift – and the declaration within the tax statements of the same if this transfer of ownership occurred during the last seven years. For the purposes of counting assets anything I think I’m right in saying anything gifted in the last seven years doesn’t count and is counted as part of the asset base of the the person making the gift (this relates to inheritance tax – but I assume the principle applies in other arenas as well).
* It occurs to me that it’s possible that the disclosure of tax affairs might open up an entirely new line of possible problems for the ex-Mayor relating to fraud IF, for any reason, his disclosure of his tax affairs (both now and in the past) is less than full and frank. Let’s not forget that the reason Al Capone ultimately went to jail for 11 years was after the IRS prosecuted him for tax evasion.
* The £250k was not a judgement so far as I am aware. When the payment was announced it seemed to me that this was a required down-payment which must be paid into court immediately while the law officers got on with doing their normal assessment of costs claimed by the petitioners and prior to any final assessment as to what are the full allowed costs and how the full attribution of costs is divided up between petitioners and defendants. Ted – I suggest it’s maybe worth taking another look at the documentation on the costs judgement.
QUESTION
* If you fail to pay into Court the required sum of money required by the Court can you be judged to be in “Contempt of Court”?
JR UPDATE
Incidentally – for those interested in Judicial Reviews – the coalition government introduced changes to Judicial Review Practice introduced in the dying days of the Coalition Government http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/apr/03/labour-pledges-to-cancel-judicial-review-changes. It would certainly be very relevant to any ex-Mayor (or other Councillor) who decides he needs to claim legal aid.
The last couple of paragraphs are pertinent
Mr Couldn’t wrote
Annex A which defines the nature of the pecuniary interest which must be disclosed limits the interests to Any beneficial interest in land which you, or your spouse or your civil partner, have and which is within the area of your council or authority.
Note the important words: which is within the area of your council or authority.
This requirement, being , excludes everything outside the area <qof your council or authority.
Surely a pertinent point ?
Curious Cat
(still not a lawyer)
YAWN – skim reading again! I’ve already made that point in my post.
I don’t think any costs of the JR, if it’s successful, could get awarded against the petitioners. The parties to the JR are Lutfur Rahman and the Election Court; the petitioners are now third parties. In 2010 the Conservative Party succeeded in arguing that the previously common practice of adding the political party to a costs order in an election petition was unlawful (see http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/1332.html).
Although if the JR is successful then it is grounds for Lutfur to seek to overturn the costs order, at least that part of it relating to the quashed decisions.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
I was thinking along the same lines
Common sense suggests that you can’t make a third party (in this case the Petitioners) pick up costs if a Judge makes an error in his judgement. That’s the Judge’s responsibility not that of the Petitioners.
Are not the Petitioners now, in legal terms, an Interested Party, whose costs are inevitably paid by the JR bringer unless the Court determines otherwise ?
Curious Cat
Hi Ted – I’m a litigation solicitor, so I just wanted to clear up a few things in your post about Rahman’s liability for costs etc etc.
The way courts assess costs is that a Judge will make an order for an interim payment, which is usually about 50-60% of the sum that the winning party is seeking. The final liability will then be determined on an assessment, looking at what is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
So….
My understanding is that the £250k that Rahman was ordered to pay the petitioners is only part of his liability for the costs of the court case. When this is all done and dusted, he will probably have to foot the petitioners’ legal bill to the tune of about £400k.
In terms of the appeal costs:
Since Rahman has decided not to appeal all of the findings, it means that he has definitely been disqualified from holding office for a period of at least 3 years. It is irrelevant what the Court of Appeal decides or whether he is given permission to appeal. From the court’s perspective, this will be seen as a “win” for the petitioners – they have obtained the relief that they sought. Therefore, it follows that they should be entitled to their costs of the claim and I very much doubt that this will be divided up into issues. Any time-wasting at trial was mostly due to Rahman and there’s decent argument that they needed to adduce all the evidence that they did as background material.
Finally, the Defendant in Rahman’s JR is the Election Court rather than the petitioners. Effectively, Rahman is saying that Mawrey acted in an unreasonable and unlawful manner in reaching his decision. As a result, the claim is against the state and if Rahman wins, the taxpayer will have to foot the bill. Since the petitioners are not involved in the case, they won’t be liable for those costs.
Does this make sense? Anyway, I hope its clarified a few points.
Thanks
V helpful.
Very illuminating.
Thank you.
CC.
P.S. Thank goodness you’re not part of that nasty Jeremy Kyle Show
YAWN – skim reading again! I’ve already made that point in my post.
Surely if you are that tired, you should lay down and rest for a while ?
Attached to the wrong comment. I’ll now go and attach it to the right comment!
@ NottheJeremyKyleShow Great to have an intelligent and qualified lawyer commenting for a change! 🙂 Plus I love the ‘moniker’ 😀
Your view certainly concurs with my memory as to what was said at the time i.e. that the £250k was approx. 50% downpayment on the estimated petitioners’ costs – with the balance to be paid once the allowable fees and expenses had been assessed in full. I’m not sure if the latter re ‘assessment’ was left ‘unsaid’ as it’s ‘normal practice’ which every lawyer (and hence their clients) ought to know.
What’s particularly interesting is your view that since the ex-Mayor did NOT appeal all the findings that this will be regarded as a “win” for the Petitioners – and hence all the Petitioners’ costs will continue to be assessed and the ex-Mayor remains liable for the full costs – whatever these might be determined to be.
That also accords with the view expressed at one point in the past that the Petitioners only needed to win on one of the charges made for the election to be declared void.
Common sense – and the law – wins out re. any costs incurred by the petitioners at JR! 🙂
Although I’m really not sure why they would need to incur any since the debate will be about the evidence presented (done) and the law as interpreted by the Judge (documented in the Judgement). Neither of which would appear to require the involvement of the Petitioners.
Correct?
Of course the ex-Mayor’s track record on Judicial Reviews is not brilliant……
For example:
* the application to challenge the inspection by PWC was thrown out in August 2014 – see http://towerhamletselectionpetition.org/assets/Tower_Hamlets_-_permission_refused_(29_08_14).pdf
* then the second challenge and Judicial Review application was thrown out as well – see http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/high-court-throws-out-lutfur-rahman-challenge-to-government-intervention-in-tower-hamlets-9862186.html and https://trialbyjeory.com/2014/11/14/tower-hamlets-council-vs-eric-pickles-judge-kicks-out-town-halls-legal-challenge-another-50k-down-the-drain/
There’s also an interesting comment on the legal processes adopted by the Secretary of State and the ex-Mayor in this article http://www.weightmans.com/library/newsletters/2014/11/local-government-november-2014/tower-hamlets-lose-another-round/
What’s driving this Judicial Review Application? (and it is only an placation for permission to proceed at this stage)
I’ve been thinking about what might be the possible reasons that are driving this application for a Judicial Review – and the way it is framed – given the fact it’s only about some but not all the charges.
After all it’s not a cheap process, particularly if you’re already facing a hefty bill for costs. So it must be pretty high stakes……..
1) The ex-Mayor knew he’d be liable for costs if he lost – but (I’m guessing) that he (and his wife) never ever thought that he’d have to pay as much as seems likely to have been incurred. Hence he’s now trying to protect his assets and his investment portfolio/pension from being raided – and is seeking to get the bill for liability for costs radically reduced – via both the JR and the employment of a lawyer to help fight the Court order re. costs and freezing of his assets.
2) I’m guessing that the ex-Mayor would like the option of being able to continue to practice as a Solicitor (don’t forget Mawrey’s judgement described the ex-Mayor as “ruthless and “dishonest” and Mawrey referred him to the Solicitors Regulation Authority at the end of the Case – I assume for review of Rahman’s permission to practice). It struck me that he needs to demonstrate that “what went wrong” was all down to his agent and he can hold his hands up and say ‘nothing to do with me’. This makes me think that maybe he would like to get the personal liability findings eliminated from the judgement and the remaining findings reduced to what might be termed some sort of equivalent of “there but for the grace of God go I….” type of judgement (i.e. how many other politicians might also fall prey to the illegal acts of their agent).
My other reason for thinking this might be an influential reason is that Alibor Choudhury is NOT joining him in this application for a JR.
3) His backers with religious convictions might want to get the issue about the “spiritual influence” settled once and for all.
It strikes me that:
* given his previous track record re. status/bling/reputation/loss of face, it seems likely that the ex-Mayor might possibly be rather more concerned about (1) and (2) above
* his backers with serious cash are more concerned about (3).
If permission to proceed is given – but NOT for all the challenges contained in the application – it will then be interesting to see if it ever actually gets to Court……
(QUESTION: Is there a limit on how long permission to proceed to JR actually lasts?)
The Solicitor’s Regulation Authority (‘SRA’), part of the larger entity called the Law Society (a solicitors’ Trade Union) has been conducting an into Mr Rahman** following receipt of the Election Petition judgement.
Further details are expected soon.
Curious Cat
** Lutfur Rahman, admitted 15 April 1997, SRA ID: 2,787, working for no disclosed entity
Whoops: should have been: Solicitors’
NottheJeremyKyleShow has made an excellent point above re costs. Do READ https://trialbyjeory.com/2015/07/18/lutfur-latest-his-costs-his-assets-his-judicial-reviewand-his-interesting-lawyers/#comment-27422
Which now suggests that this JR cannot be motivated by any desire on the part of the ex-Mayor to reduce his liability for the Petitioners’ costs re his loss in the Electoral Court (irrespective of the fact that he’s hired a lawyer to do precisely that) – due to
* the ‘win’ now accorded to the Petitioners due to the fact that…..
*….. the ex-Mayor did not challenge ALL the findings – any one of which would have rendered the election void.
That is unless he’s employed a lawyer who’s unused to litigation who has not pointed this out to him………
Anybody getting a very strong sense that the legal team of two lawyers and the client aren’t communicating together effectively?
What’s driving this appeal is Rahman and his corrupt cronies, crying that they’re Muslims and they want special rights and treatment and if they don’t get it everyone else is racist and islamaphobic.
It is, of course, a matter for the courts but my feeling is that this JR is going nowhere. Time will tell.
On the contrary this is definitely going somewhere:-
1. round and round in endless circles, until
2. Hogan-Howe’s cowboys and gals knock on his door.
Inevitably I do feel pity for Mr Rahman. He never ever expected this nightmare – the worse is yet to befall him. The mental and emotion strain must be immense.
Not much has been written about his sinister mentor – perhaps the real Arch Villain – who ruthlessly exploits weaknesses in lesser mortals.
The JR circus will gain Mr Rahman, in practical terms, nothing.
Curious Cat.
Can I question the belief that success in the JR will reduce the disqualification from five years to three? The JR isn’t challenging the finding that Lutfur Rahman was guilty by his agents of personation (under s. 60 and 62A of the 1983 Act). The evidence of multiple registration and voting presented to the election court was compelling. But under s. 160 (7) of the Act, the consequences of a candidate being reported guilty by their agents are the same as if they were reported personally guilty – so would he not still be under the five year disqualification for corrupt practices?
IA still NAL.
Excellent point.
I concur: 5 years.
Curious Cat
So the argument that Ben Emmerson is advancing is that the ex-Mayor was only PERSONALLY liable for corrupt practices in relation to:
* s 113 of the 1983 Act (Bribery) – this relates to the payments to the community groups – which is being DISPUTED
* s 115 of the 1983 Act (Undue Influence) – which is being DISPUTED
In other words the line being taken by Emmerson is that the ex-Mayor is not personally liable for anything – the offences have been incurred purely through the actions of his agents?
(i.e. possibly something along the lines of some of the provisions of s 159???) However the provisions as to the length of the bans in local and parliamentary elections in relation to s. 159 seem to have been eliminated over time…..
While you’re suggesting that s7 still provides for a ban of 5 years re. offences in relation to s. 60 (Personation) which is NOT being disputed by Emmerson
Note that Section 160 (7) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2/section/160
states
As usual this could be said much more clearly!
Correct?
Might the full text of s 158 also be very relevant? http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2/section/158
In the meantime, Tower Hamlets continues to be in the News – as highlighted by Ted
Convention has it that the applicant for a JR against the State pays the costs of his JR, win or lose, if the State chooses not to be represented.
I imagine the ‘spiritual influence’ point could be ‘leapfrog’ appealed to the Supreme Court if he loses, then onwards to the ECHR, given Mr Emmerson’s experience in HR cases. Doubt if there will be a pressing demand for counsel’s fees upfront – the Mirror reported this weekend that Mr Emmerson QC is on £1,700 a day (for approximately five years) on the CSA enquiry. Nice to keep an Article 9 case in line for the ECHR whilst that’s going on!
Can I ask a question – If Loony Lutfur is found guilty of criminal charges, will that remove all of the other smokescreen/delaying tactics?
Also, doesn’t he need to prove the financial means to complete this new farcical act, and list how he came upon the funds?
Perhaps a bit premature, because no one has been charged, yet.
CC
What Saghir Hussein conveniently ignores is than another Muslim, Helal Abbas Uddin, was council leader five times. An inconvenient truth.
Shahid Ali is in Dubai. Presumably staying in his friend flat. Ahem .
[…] « Lutfur latest: His costs, his assets, his Judicial Review…and his interesting lawyers […]