Birmingham Ladywood Lib Dem PPC loses judicial review

The Birmingham Mail has the story:

… a city councillor [has] failed to overturn a judge’s ruling that he “scurrilously” tried to smear a Labour opponent when giving evidence in an election court.

Coun Ayoub Khan, who is his party’s prospective candidate for Ladywood at the next general election, hoped to clear his name after Elections Commissioner Timothy Straker QC found he had made up a “sordid” story in an attempt to falsely accuse Aston Labour councillor Muhammed Afzal of witness nobbling.

Mr Straker, in an election trial in Birmingham last year, also found that Coun Khan, who is a barrister, made up an “unpleasant and unsubstantiated” claim that Coun Afzal’s supporters were responsible for an arson attack on a Range Rover owned by a Liberal Democrat supporter.

More than two years after the trial, Coun Khan (Lib Dem Aston) finally exhausted grounds for appeal when two High Court judges ruled against an application for a judicial review into Mr Straker’s findings. …

senior Birmingham Liberal Democrat John Hemming said he believed Coun Khan had the support of local Liberal Democrats and was considering taking the issue to the Court of Appeal. Coun Khan faces a possible unprofessional conduct hearing, which could result in his suspension as a barrister.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in News.


  • What a great candidate.

  • Herbert Brown 28th Jul '09 - 1:05am

    The Birmingham Mail report contained just seven sentences. Stephen Tall snipped out just the first half of sentence number 1 (“LIBERAL Democrat leader Nick Clegg was today under pressure to sack one of his rising stars in Birmingham after …”), and sentence number 5 (“After the High Court ruling, city council Labour group leader Sir Albert Bore said he had written to Mr Clegg urging him to “take immediate action” against Coun Khan.”).

    I’m not sure what the rationale was behind the removal of those bits.
    Maybe we were supposed to think, “Oh dear. Still, it can’t be all that bad – no one is calling for his removal as a candidate”?

  • Andrew Turvey 28th Jul '09 - 2:48am

    Why on earth is this guy still our candidate? Clearly not suitable, he should be sacked immediately.

  • Herbert Brown 28th Jul '09 - 9:50am


    If you believe that snipping one and a half out of seven sentences converts a breach of copyright into “fair use”, I think you need to do a bit more research into copyright law!

  • Stephen, that is an incredibly lame excuse and is no justification.

    This site is great for us taking a balanced and even handed view of the good and bad of Lib Dem politics. Something the others do not do. However given the fuss we made about the candidate in Watford even demanding an apology from David Cameron I do not see that it does us any good to censor part of it.

    Either publish it or don’t. Poor, very poor.

  • The question is whether councillor Khan is going to appeal? If he is & the court can hear the case this year then the local party could wait for the result. Otherwise he must resign, as PPC & councillor. Only if the local party is unwilling to act should the National party get involved.

  • Stephen was quite right to omit the rtetorical calls for Clegg to do something. A report in the Guardian gave the Liberal Democrat response.

    ….A Lib Dem spokeswoman said that an inquiry into Khan’s conduct had been launched but then suspended because of legal advice that it should not take place until the councillor’s appeal was heard.

    “Now it has been heard and the appeal has been made, the investigation will resume and whatever disciplinary action is appropriate will be taken,” she said.

    It is – incidentally – quite a feat for Albert Bore to be attacking other people and other parties over their standards.

  • The problem with immediate action is the nature of what has been said. This is somewhat akin to a criminal conviction in that it is the finding of a court (albeit on a different burden of proof). The problem is that Cllr Khan was just a witness in the case not an “accused”. He didn’t necessarily have the opportunity to have the allegations put to him and to formulate his defence/response.

    Now would seem the right time for a party investigation to take place as there is clearly a case to answer. (it seems the Bar Council take a similar view)

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Ruth Bright
    I liked what Daisy Cooper did about the D-Day/Rishi controversy. Reading from her Grandpa's war diary was high risk because it is so easy to sound mawkish - but...
  • Jenny Barnes
    "Every member will have had many communications by now asking them to prioritise their efforts in a specific seat." No, I haven't had any, let alone many....
  • nvelope2003
    Whatever the reason for the move to the right in some states maybe the British have seen where this leads and will reverse the trend here. One can but hope....
  • expats
    The Conservative manifesto launch was far more like the funeral for an unpopular corpse than a christening... Little about past achievements much on 'future sna...
  • Alex Macfie
    @Simon R: Comments like these are populist right-wing tropes: "The liberal left has become a shill for a failed EU establishment…" ...