Holding, R. v

Holding, R. v

Section 75(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 must be read, pursuant to s.3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, so that the permitted sum proviso applies to paragraphs (a)-(d), making the section compatible with Article 10 ECHR. The trial judge erred in ruling there was an absolute bar on unauthorised third...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Terence Holding; Interested Party: Department of Constitutional Affairs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Election Expenses, Freedom of Expression, Interpretation of Statutes, Compatibility With European Convention on Human Rights, Application of Human Rights Act, Third Party Election Spending
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Election Law Human Rights Law Election Expenses Freedom of Expression Interpretation of Statutes Compatibility With European Convention on Human Rights +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Terence Holding

Appellant

Department of Constitutional Affairs

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.75(1)(a) and (b) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is compatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether the permitted sum proviso applies to s.75(1)(a) and (b)
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the absolute bar on unauthorised third party election expenses

Ratio Decidendi

Section 75(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 must be read, pursuant to s.3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, so that the permitted sum proviso applies to paragraphs (a)-(d), making the section compatible with Article 10 ECHR. The trial judge erred in ruling there was an absolute bar on unauthorised third party election expenses under (a) and (b), and misdirected the jury. Convictions under counts 1 and 3 (banner flights) must be quashed as the expenses were below the permitted sum; the conviction under count 2 (leaflets) stands as the expenses exceeded the permitted sum.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Convictions under counts 1 and 3 quashed
  • Conviction under count 2 upheld