Watkins v Woolas

Watkins v Woolas

The Respondent made statements of fact in relation to the Petitioner's personal character or conduct, including that the Petitioner sought the support of Muslims who advocated violence, refused to condemn extremists, and reneged on his promise to live in the constituency. These statements were untrue, not reasonably believed, and not supported by reasonable grounds. The Respondent is therefore guilty of an illegal practice under section 106 of the RPA 1983, and his election is void.

Parties
Petitioner: Robert Elwyn James Watkins; Respondent: Philip James Woolas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Judgment
Outcome
Election voided; Respondent found personally guilty of illegal practice.
Legal Topics
False Statements in Election Campaigns, Freedom of Expression, Burden of Proof, Electoral Offences, Representation of the People Act
Election Law Constitutional Law Human Rights False Statements in Election Campaigns Freedom of Expression Burden of Proof Electoral Offences Representation of the People Act

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Elwyn James Watkins

Petitioner

Philip James Woolas

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent made or published false statements of fact in relation to the Petitioner's personal character or conduct contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
  2. 2 Whether such statements were made for the purpose of affecting the return at the election.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent had reasonable grounds for believing the statements to be true.

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent made statements of fact in relation to the Petitioner's personal character or conduct, including that the Petitioner sought the support of Muslims who advocated violence, refused to condemn extremists, and reneged on his promise to live in the constituency. These statements were untrue, not reasonably believed, and not supported by reasonable grounds. The Respondent is therefore guilty of an illegal practice under section 106 of the RPA 1983, and his election is void.

Court Disposition

Election voided; Respondent found personally guilty of illegal practice.

Orders

  • Report to the Speaker as required by sections 144 and 158 of the RPA 1983.
  • Respondent's election as Member of Parliament declared void under section 159 of the RPA 1983.