By election candidate publishes electoral campaign literature which does not have any imprint published on it

Question

What happens to a candidate who publishes double-sided electoral campaign leaflets to all households (and has them put in house and shop windows) for a parish council by-election that do not have any imprints on them? Neither side of the published literature has an imprint, even though this is a legal requirement for the candidate to be compliant under the Electoral Commission regulations and s106 of te Representation of the People Act 1983. The election was held yesterday under the aegis of our borough council and today it was announced that the non-compliant leafletting candidate had won and had therefore been elected onto the parish council. Can electors complain about the lack of imprints on the newly-elected councillor's campaign literature, and if so, to whom do any complaints go? Should they be raised with the electoral office of the borough council, or with the police? Also, if the complaint is upheld, does that alter the by-election result - ie would the winning candidate be disbarred? Would the next candidate be deemed 'elected' in their place? I can't find any outcome information on any website.

Answer 1

This is what I found on the Electoral Commission website : Certain offences relate specifically to election campaign publicity material. Printed election campaign publicity material must contain an imprint  and not resemble a poll card. Campaign publicity material must also not contain a false statement as to the personal character or conduct of another candidate.

This is covered in the Section 143 PPERA 2000 and Section 110 RPA 83

In the first instance, it should be reported to the Electoral Commission or Returning Officer

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-candidates-parish-council-elections-england/campaigning/reporting-allegations-electoral-fraud

Comments

Many thanks for the helpful information. I'll report it to the borough council's returning officer and see what happens.

Answer 2

As this is a criminal offence, ultimately it is for the Police to investigate. The CPS would then need to decide whether it is in the public interest to pursue a prosecution. Unfortunately they would probably be unlikely to.

Comments

Thank you for the information. Why would someone who has committed a criminal offence not be prosecuted?

---

2 main reasons:
1. They do not believe their is sufficient evidence for there to be a realistic chance of being found guilty.
2. Not in the public interest to prosecute (maybe the nature of the crime is minor or the costs of bringing the prosecution is disproportionate)

It is very common for the CPS to choose not to prosecute (or even for the Police to choose not to refer a matter to the CPS in the first place). Even for cases where most people would think they should and the evidence is clear.

---

As a journalist I understand what you are saying. However, why have these rules and regulations if they are not enforced? If they are not enforced, nobody standing for election in any tier of local government can happily put two fingers up to the electoral service and returning officer, let alone the electoral commision and put out any old rubbish about themesleves with impunity. Either it is a legal requirement or it isn't. There should be no middle ground or grey area.

---

It's the same with so many laws. The law itself has no real power unless you have someone who is going to launch a prosecution. Most people can't afford to bring their own prosecutions.

Not declaring interests is a criminal offence. Very rarely does this get prosecuted.

Answer 3

Whilst a slightly different scenario, the following detail may be of interest / relevant:

In the example of a Cllr failing to accurately complete and declare ALL of the required fields in a declaration of interest (similarly - assumed to be a (strict liability) criminal offence by dint of the Statutory requirement) it was wholly anticipated that reporting this to the Monitoring officer would be a complete waste of time.  In fact, it WAS a complete waste of time since the MO decision was, that since the omission had been corrected, it was not in the public interest to prosecute.

Anticipating that the MO would be a waste of time and effort, that scenario was reported direct to the police bypassing the MO.  

The police then sought input from the MO (and don't forget - a LA is actually a prosecuting authority (like the post office (and the similarities are obvious!)) 

So whilst it may 'appear' that a potential criminal offence may have been committed by the candidate, you could report the situation to the ERO (many EROs are also the MO BTW) but I think we all know how nugatory that route can be, you could report it straight to the old bill, but they would likely seek the advice of the ERO/MO and probably pass it back to the LA for investigation / prosecution decision.

FWIW - I would submit direct to the police and let it take its course, at the very least that would ensure 'external agency' being aware of ERO/MO action / inaction.

As to what the outcome would be viz-a-viz the assumed electoral transgression - if there is no investigation / prosecution I suspect there would be no follow up action and this will be consigned to the ever growing file of MO irrelevance.