A defeated candidate from the May 2010 general election is facing court action following claims he made false statements during the election. The Portsmouth News reports:
Les Cummings, who stood as the city’s Justice and Anti-Corruption Party will appear at Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court on Friday, charged with breaching the Representation of the People Act.
Police at Fareham Police Station charged Mr Cummings on Thursday afternoon, with having made, on April 22, before an election, for the purpose of affecting candidate Mike Hancock, false statements that he knew to be untrue.
Meanwhile in other election law news, Nick Clegg has rejected calls from the Electoral Commission to change the rules for next May if there is a queue at a polling station at 10pm:
The elections watchdog said it was “disappointed” the government had ignored its call for legislation to prevent a repeat of angry scenes during May’s general election, when some people queuing to vote were turned away at the deadline…
Clegg told the Commons: “I’m acutely aware of the problem; I visited the polling stations several times on that day and saw the huge queues of people, many of whom who were in the end denied their democratic right to exercise a vote.
“The question then is – what do we do about it? I just so happen to think in this particular instance simply passing a law won’t deal with the problem.
“The problem was a lack of resources; the problem was poor organisation by the returning officer. That’s what we need to address – not always simply reach for the statute book,” he said. (The Guardian)
However, it is possible the House of Lords may take a different view on the matter and amend the electoral legislation that will shortly be before it.
7 Comments
Sorry, read the headline and thought you were talking about Nick Clegg. We live in hope.
“Nick Clegg has rejected calls from the Electoral Commission to change the rules for next May if there is a queue at a polling station at 10pm:”
Don’t really understand why he’s rejected these calls. My (outdated) Schofield says this is based on caselaw so might not even need primary legislation to deal with.
I agree with his last point, however there is clearly always a possibility of a late rush to a polling station which can unexpectedly overwhelm even well organised polling officers.
another court case – and again, it is the Lib Dem candidate about whom lies have been told (I suppose at this stage I should say allegedly). Interesting.
What was the offending election material, and why wait so long for the arrest?
This is pointless. The guy lost anyway. the police have better things to do. The point about Woolas is he won.
Who are the “Justice and Anti-Corruption Party” when they’re at home? The name sounds similar to the sort of banner under which perennial candidate and total oddball Norman Scarth contests elections round here. I hear the sound of sledgehammers cracking peanuts; it’s not as if this Cummings bloke had a chance of winning, let alone the might of a party machine behind him.
Interesting, though, that it’s Mike Hancock who was being smeared yet again.
What really is interesting is that a complant went to the CPS about Hancock’s election material and the CPS decided not to persue because of ‘public interest’.