Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘jewel islam’

The Evening Standard reported this last night:

Two men have been arrested in an investigation into vote fraud in separate London boroughs.

A 38-year-old man was arrested in Tower Hamlets and a 33-year-old man was arrested in Enfield, Scotland Yard said.

Police made clear that the two cases are not linked but said both relate to alleged false declarations on nominations papers for local elections to be held on May 22.

The pair were tonight being questioned at a north London police station.

Both arrests were made on suspicion of an offence under section 65a of the Representation of People Act 1983, which relates to false statements made on nomination papers.

Sources confidently tell me the man in question in Tower Hamlets is Jewel Islam, the Conservative candidate for the Mile End ward.

Screen shot 2014-05-14 at 10.42.28

Mr Islam is the man in the bottom photo. He stood for the Tories in the Mile End East ward in 2006 when he polled 454 votes. He’s a businessman has been listed as a director of three dissolved/non-dormant Brick Lane registered companies in the past three years.

Scotland Yard, where there is a special team examining the London borough elections, tell me the 38 year old has been bailed until a date in June pending further inquiries. This means he will be standing in the election next week.

My understanding is that his arrest is NOT related to any false signature, date of birth or address.

Section 65A of the Representation of the People’s Act states:

False statements in nomination papers etc.

(1)A person is guilty of a corrupt practice if, in the case of any relevant election, he causes or permits to be included in a document delivered or otherwise furnished to a returning officer for use in connection with the election—

(a)a statement of the name or home address of a candidate at the election which he knows to be false in any particular; or

[F2(aa)(where the election is a parliamentary election) a statement under rule 6(5)(b) of Schedule 1 to this Act which he knows to be false in any particular; or]

(b)anything which purports to be the signature of an elector who proposes, seconds or assents to, the nomination of such a candidate but which he knows—

(i)was not written by the elector by whom it purports to have been written, or

(ii)if written by that elector, was not written by him for the purpose of signifying that he was proposing, seconding, or (as the case may be) assenting to, that candidate’s nomination[F3 or

(c)a certificate authorising for the purposes of rule 6A of the parliamentary elections rules the use by a candidate of a description if he knows that the candidate is standing at an election in another constituency in which the poll is to be held on the same day as the poll at the election to which the certificate relates.]

[F4(1A)A person is guilty of a corrupt practice if, in the case of any relevant election, he makes in any document in which he gives his consent to his nomination as a candidate—

(a)a statement of his date of birth,

(b)a statement as to his qualification for being elected at that election, or

(c)a statement that he is not a candidate at an election for any other constituency the poll for which is to be held on the same day as the poll at the election to which the consent relates,

which he knows to be false in any particular.

(1B)For the purposes of subsection (1A), a statement as to a candidate’s qualification is a statement—

(a)that he is qualified for being elected,

(b)that he will be qualified for being elected, or

(c)that to the best of his knowledge and belief he is not disqualified for being elected.]

(2)In this section “relevant election” means—

(a)any parliamentary election, or

(b)[F5except for the purposes of subsections (1)(c) and (1A)(c),] any local government election in England or Wales.]

For the purposes of free flowing debate and interest in the election process, I’m going to allow comments but the non-libellous discussion must not relate directly to Mr Islam’s arrest. He has not been charged, let alone been tried or convicted. I’d prefer discussion to be around interpretations of this Section 65A.

 

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: