The "crime" Helen is alleged to have committed? Not putting an imprint on the posters. What normally happens, when people inadvertently make this mistake? I am endebted to one of our team of Barnet armchair sleuths for drawing our attention to what the electoral commission say on their website. So has all this Police time and resource been wisely used? Make your own mind up. I have
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There
were 271 cases investigated in Britain in the whole of 2010. (para 2.12). All but one resulted in no action or a
caution.
Note
the following paragraphs:
2.35
While
it is relatively easy to produce evidence of breaches of
imprint
offences,
many offenders are not prosecuted on the grounds that it was
not
intentional.
Many candidates claim ignorance or state that it was an
inadvertent
oversight.
In such cases, it is often deemed not to be in the public interest
to
bring
a prosecution and they often result in no further action ass was the case
in
almost
half of s110 offences. However, some police officers issue a warning or
a
caution
to preven
t them from committing the same offence at future
elections
11
of the 31 cases (35%) were resolved in this way.
2.7
only
one case resulted in a criminal conviction whereby the defendant was required to
pay a fine :-
2.36
Manchester – Miles Platting and Newton Heath ward
A
defendant pleaded guilty to being paid £50 to deliver up to 1,000 leaflets that
made allegations about the character of a particular candidate. These leaflets
claimed the candidate was corrupt and that he took backhanders. The offender
gave a description of the man and woman who paid him the money but it has not
been possible to identify them. As
the defendant pleaded guilty and had no interest in the election contest other
than his payment he was fined:-
£50
for distributing leaflets without an imprint (s110) and
£50
for making false statements about the candidate (s106).
He
was also fined £85 costs plus £15 victim support.
2.13,
[most reported cases are] based on misunderstanding of the rules rather than
actual malpractice. [NB - this shows
that an inadvertent breach of the electoral law is not seen as malpractice]
Of course there is one difference in Barnet, every remark about the character of the particular candidate, and 101 reasons were found on one site with some left over, was true.
ReplyDeleteDe minimis non curat lex.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDe minimis non curat lex...the law does not concern itself with trifles. 'Someone' should get their just desserts for pursuing the complaint.
ReplyDeleteAlthough originally the poster was the matter of a council complaint, it would seem clear now that the resurrection of this issue is a pretext, but no less scandalous - nip over to my blog to find out more ... http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/exclusive-curious-case-of-helen-michael.html
ReplyDeleteDesserts - baked jam roll and custard?
ReplyDeleteA friend and former neighbour has reminded me today of the following.
ReplyDeleteFor many years local politicians and local government officers have suffered from delusions of adequacy.
'Blackout' is on BBC1 tonight at 9pm.
ReplyDeleteApparently, "Brian is elected Mayor, but is quickly drawn into a web of deception, in which no-one can be trusted. How long can he keep his dark secret from the bloggers?"
Or something like that.
Another quote:
ReplyDelete"The council leader has an absolute genius for putting flamboyant labels on empty luggage".