Preston, R (on the application of) v Wandsworth Borough Council & Anor

The 15 year rule is not an unlawful interference with the claimant’s EU right to free movement because any deterrent effect is too indirect, uncertain, and unsupported by evidence. Even if justification were required, the rule is a proportionate and legitimate means of ensuring a genuine link between overseas voters and the UK.

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 / Final Judgment
Outcome: Application dismissed
Legal Topics: Right to Vote, Freedom of Movement, Disenfranchisement of Expatriates, Proportionality, Non Discrimination

Constitutional Law European Union Law Administrative Law Right to Vote Freedom of Movement Disenfranchisement of Expatriates Proportionality Non Discrimination

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

James Alistair Preston

Claimant

Wandsworth Borough Council

First Defendant

Lord President of the Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the 15 year rule in section 1(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1985 unlawfully restricts the claimant's EU right to free movement by disenfranchising British citizens resident abroad for more than 15 years.
2 Whether the rule is a proportionate and justified interference with EU rights.
3 Whether the rule is discriminatory under EU law.

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application dismissed