Preston, R (on the application of) v Wandsworth Borough Council & Anor [2011] EWHC 3174 (Admin) (01 December 2011)

The 15 year rule does not constitute an unlawful interference with EU free movement rights because there is no evidence that it deters or restricts the exercise of those rights in practice. Any interference is too indirect and uncertain. Even if justification were required, the rule is proportionate and pursues a legitimate aim of limiting the franchise to those with a sufficient connection to the UK.

Citation: [2011] EWHC 3174 (Admin)
Parties: Claimant: James Alistair Preston; First Defendant: Wandsworth Borough Council; Second Defendant: Lord President of the Council
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 01 December 2011
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome: Application dismissed
Legal Topics: Right to Vote, Freedom of Movement, Disenfranchisement of Overseas Electors, Proportionality, EU Citizenship

Constitutional Law European Union Law Administrative Law Right to Vote Freedom of Movement Disenfranchisement of Overseas Electors Proportionality EU Citizenship

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

James Alistair Preston

Claimant

Wandsworth Borough Council

First Defendant

Lord President of the Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Does the 15 year rule in section 1(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1985 unlawfully interfere with EU free movement rights?
2 Is the 15 year rule a proportionate and justified restriction on the right to vote for British citizens residing abroad?
3 Does the rule infringe the EU principle of equality or non-discrimination?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application dismissed