Election Petition

Ahmed Khan’s challenge published

The presenting of an election petition is such a rare event in the North-East of England that surely it draws attention and interest. If anyone can remember another such petition relating to an election in South Tyneside then please let us know.

Mr. Ahmed Khan stood as the Independent candidate in the Beacon and Bents ward in the local government elections in South Tyneside on 3rd. May. After a recount Audrey MacMillan (Labour) was declared the winner by 33 votes over Mr. Khan, James Hills, Edward Anthony Russell, Henry Pearce, Lynne Barber, and Gordon Robertshaw.

Despite the recount on the day of official counting (4th. May) Mr. Khan was still not satisfied with the result and the methods used to reject a number of postal ballots as unverifiable, these unverified ballots were not subsequently opened and have not counted as part of the democratic process. Consequently Mr. Khan is petitioning the High Court for “just relief” and a declaration that Audrey MacMillan was not duly elected, therefore the election should be declared “void”. A copy of his petition was printed in the Shields Gazette this evening, and interesting reading it makes too!

The allegations

Here is a brief summary of the allegations as outlined in the petition;

1. That Robert Dix (now a councillor in the Harton ward) made a false statement as to Mr. Khan’s reasons for being a candidate.
2. That Cllr. Iain Malcolm was observed to be in unauthorised possession of postal ballots on April 26th.
3. That postal ballots were opened on 27th. April, instead of after 22.00 on 3rd. May
4. That Audrey MacMillan’s supporters prevented potential voters from accessing a polling station on 3rd. May.
5. That the Ocean Road Community Centre should not have been used as a polling station because Audrey MacMillan is Chair of the management committee.
6. That information was withheld about the number of spoilt postal ballots on 3rd. May.

I’m not sure how the court will view the fifth point, will they see it as frivolous? However the others will be worth serious examination, and no doubt will require more than a bit of corroborative evidence to back them up, and the named councillors may well be called to be examined on Mr. Khan’s allegations.

It would be quite understandable if they don’t put fingers to keyboards to defend themselves via this forum, but they are welcome to comment if they so wish (bearing in mind that the matters are now sub-judice). I have no idea how long these proceedings might take, or when we might expect to here a judgement, no doubt there will be precedents in Electoral Law cases to guide the court too.

Here’s another interesting point, the verification process for postal ballots is there to provide some proof that the ballot in the envelope has been submitted by the person to whom it was first posted, yet there is no requirement for a person who walks to the polling station to prove who they are. For example, I went to my local polling station without an official polling card, gave my name and address, it was checked off against the Electoral Register and I was handed a ballot paper. Theoretically I could just have easily given the name and address of one of my neighbours who I knew was still wrapped up in bed at that time of morning, I would have been given a ballot paper and made a vote. I could then have returned later in the day, dressed differently, and voted again using the same procedure using my real name and address – makes you wonder about the security of our so-called “secret ballot” processes doesn’t it?