In the week before election day we received a newsletter through our door which was definitely illegal for one reason and possibly illegal for another. The question is whether anything will come of it.

The two aspects of the leaflet that were illegal, in my opinion, were an incorrect imprint and a reference (in bold type) to “Labour’s plans for a travellers site near the top of Tollgate Hill”. I know nothing will happen about the second point because its subject to some interpretation. The implication is that the Labour party wanted to locate a travellers’ site in that place and the truth is that it didn’t. As such the comment could be said to be defamatory but that just takes it outside electoral law and into normal civil law – although the libel was against a party and not a person and I’m not sure you can libel a party.

Apparently false statements in election material are only illegal under electoral law if they are about another candidate’s character. You can say what you like about a political party. Have the Tories found a loophole which lets them say whatever the hell they want?

I’m certain nothing will happen about that because somebody would have to identify themselves as the injured party and initiate legal action against a party rich enough to afford better lawyers.

With the imprint I am a lot clearer. According to Section 143 of PPERA, as amended by Section 66, EAA and Section 110, RPA 1983, as substituted
by Schedule 18 of PPERA the name and address of any person on whose behalf the
material is being published must also be included, if this person is not the
promoter. The material I received did not include the name of a person on whose behalf it was promoted.

The only defence would be a claim that it was not election material but a regular newsletter that just happened to be produced a week before the election, but that would be a slim defence given the frequency the election date is mentioned in it, along with demands to vote for a particular candidate. I asked a friend who is a bit of an expert in these matters about it, and he agrees that its illegal.

I also asked the council. Sort of. I would have thought that the person to ask would be the returning officer, but the Crawley council website does not list an e-mail address for them. Can you believe that? It has a page about the elections which does not mention who the returning officer is or how to contact them; just the latest example of how bloody useless it is as a source of information.

There was an e-mail address called democracy@crawley.gov.uk so I wrote to that address, listed the particulars of this election material, asked for an opinion about whether it constituted an illegal piece of campaigning and asked how one should proceed if one wanted to. A week has passed with no reply…

The thing is, nothing is likely to happen about this either, but not for the obvious reasons.

Some people say its not worth pursuing for the reasons above – that the Tories have better lawyers and those of us on normal salaries would not be able to afford any sort of action. That isn’t the reason nothing will happen: I’m pretty sure that electoral offences are pursued by the Police, like any other crime. Its enough to tell them that it happened and let them take it from there, so worrying about cost is not a reason to drop it.

Another theory is that all parties make cock-ups and none can be sure they have not made a mistake themselves. Is that a reason to allow something illegal to stand?

The real reason that nothing will happen is that nobody can be bothered for various reasons. My own reason is that its a stupid law. Although election laws are there for a good reason – to protect us from mis-representation, manipulation, and so on – they end up being followed in the detail only. We end up with it being perfectly legal, apparently, to tell outright lies about a party’s policy but you could get done for an administrative oversight.

Those involved in elections are too busy worrying about whether its OK to have a badge which says “Vote xyz” to notice anything else. Discussions about exactly what is and is not allowed on badges and rosettes can get terribly anal, and miss the point entirely.

The business about imprints is the same. Its an unworkable law. For example, the Electoral Commision’s advice says that any website that refers to an election or candidate(s) should have an imprint as a matter of good practice. That’s a bit vague isn’t it? By those criteria the BBC News website, all the newspapers and even sites like Vote UK should have an imprint. It also says that:

Election publicity also includes materials that prejudice, criticise or disparage the electoral prospects at the election of other parties or candidates or (as the case may be) by prejudicing the standing with the electorate of other parties or candidates, even if that material does not expressly mention the name of any party or candidate.

Follow that to the letter and the Evening Standard should contain an imprint saying  “published and promoted on behalf of Boris Johnson”!

Pursuing the Tories over the illegal imprint on their shabby, poisonous newsletter instead of over the content is a bit like how the US government got Al Capone for income tax offences instead of racketeering and murder and I may be fuming about them continuing to peddle the same lies every year but not petty and petulant enough to take it out on them by using that nit-pickers’ charter that is the electoral laws.

In fact the only thing  that tempts me to follow it up is the lack of response to a simple, factual question by Crawley borough council.  I’m sure conspiracy theorists would say its the Tories pulling strings to prevent anything happening, but having been in the town hall I know all too well that a cock-up is far more likely.

Having said that, I’m still hanging on to the offending document just in case.  Just because I’m not going to take it to the Police doesn’t mean I would not provide the evidence if anybody else did – it would be my civic duty wouldn’t it? 😉

On the other hand…  I have just re-read the Tory leaflet and you could almost say that the statement about Labour plans does directly affect the character of a candidate.  Just before that statement it talks about Labour councillors being rejected by voters and that one of them is now standing in Broadfield South.  It then says that “they must think people in Crawley have very  short memories!! ” ((I always think that multiple exclamation marks is the sign of a poor intellect))  It continues immediately with “However, we will not forget Labour’s plans etc. etc”

I reckon you could argue that a direct reference to the candidate in Broadfield South, followed by reference to a supposed plan that neither he nor his party had  could be construed to be a false statement of fact about the personal character or conduct of a candidate.

According to Section 106(1) of PPERA that is serious.  That could void an election, lead to fines, and end up with people being not only unable to stand for election for three years but not even being allowed to vote for three years!   All of a sudden I’m getting tempted again, but I guess its down to Ian Irvine whether he feels he has personally been mis-represented.