Baxter v Fear & Ors

Baxter v Fear & Ors

The acts and omissions of the Returning Officer, which resulted in 115 electors being effectively disenfranchised, affected the result of the election for the Second and Third Respondents. The court is not permitted to speculate or infer how disenfranchised electors would have voted. The issuing of second ballot papers to 56 returning electors was not authorised by the election rules, and those votes should not be counted.

Parties
Petitioner: Beryl Baxter; First Respondent: Laurence Fear; Second Respondent: Roger George Marley; Third Respondent: Norman David Decent; Fourth Respondent: Tony Williams
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Judgment
Outcome
Petition allowed; election of Second and Third Respondents declared invalid.
Legal Topics
Validity of Local Government Elections, Acts and Omissions of Returning Officer, Disenfranchisement of Electors, Interpretation of Election Statutes, Remedies for Election Irregularities
Election Law Administrative Law Public Law Validity of Local Government Elections Acts and Omissions of Returning Officer Disenfranchisement of Electors Interpretation of Election Statutes Remedies for Election Irregularities

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beryl Baxter

Petitioner

Laurence Fear

First Respondent

Roger George Marley

Second Respondent

Norman David Decent

Third Respondent

Tony Williams

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acts and omissions of the Returning Officer affected the result of the Kinson South Ward election under section 48 of the Representation of the People Act 1983
  2. 2 Whether it is permissible for the court to infer how disenfranchised electors would have voted
  3. 3 Whether the votes of 56 returning electors issued a second ballot paper should be counted

Ratio Decidendi

The acts and omissions of the Returning Officer, which resulted in 115 electors being effectively disenfranchised, affected the result of the election for the Second and Third Respondents. The court is not permitted to speculate or infer how disenfranchised electors would have voted. The issuing of second ballot papers to 56 returning electors was not authorised by the election rules, and those votes should not be counted.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed; election of Second and Third Respondents declared invalid.

Orders

  • Declaration that the local government election for Kinson South Ward was invalid as regards the Second and Third Respondents.
  • Votes of the 56 returning electors issued a second ballot paper are to be disregarded.