This report is from the Lib Dem Voice court reporter. You may also like to read Nick Thornsby’s account of the first day of the trial
Helen Mountfield is the lead counsel for Elwyn Watkins with James Laddie QC her able second from Matrix chambers.
Elwyn was in the witness box first. Mountfield’s opening statement was devastating in that it refered to email from Woolas’ campaign team which wrote “we have to make the white folk angry” or as they put it ‘angrey’.
It would seem that all trials now have to refer to the European Human Rights Act. In particular the 1983 Representation of the People Act with section 106 being of particular reference.
In the ECHR articles 3 and 10 refer to the right of free and robust political debate, but also have qualifications over false statements. Mountfield raised the issue of ‘sour grapes’ being the prime motivation of Elwyn Watkins. It was about whether Mr Woolas cheated as a candidate thereby depriving the electorate of their democratic choice.
Gavin Millar QC tried to argue that Watkins had made some sort of commitment that he made a promise to move into the constituency. He had in the sense that he would do so before the General Election. A fine legal argument followed which of course shed little light. Millar also tried to argue that Watkins had promised to solely fund the campaign. Millar asked about Watkins income and whether he had enough to actually fund the campaign alone.
Millar tried to allude to some corrupt practise by Watkins, saying that he was funded by Shak Abdullah and his El Raini Group, but failed to make a case. Watkins wasn’t caught on the subject of his income. One comedy moment came when Elwyn was asked to reconcile the Hadjuri calendar against the Gregorian Calendar by Millar. In classic liberal style Elwyn said he was ‘careful with his cash’.
Millar tried to imply that the entire campaign was paid for by Watkins alone. He went through Watkins’ expenditure over the last 3 years – none of which came anywhere near to the £200,000 alleged by Woolas. Millar tried to imply covert income from Saudi Arabia but failed to connect the dots.
Two Liberal Democrat witnesses were in the witness box for less than 10 minutes and two further were never even called.
Millar tried to ask about a Liberal Democrat Eid leaflet, but was confused about the fact that there were two of them.
Woolas admitted he could not explain why his diary was withheld. He also got into a semantic argument over whether a doctored photograph was actually doctored. For him it was only ‘altered’. He also alleged that Watkins was wooing extremists.
The case continues.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems should target becoming largest party in local government (LDN#212)
The Joy of Six 1552
Trump offended by key Burnham appointment
Clear the gallery!
The first serving PM to receive the Legion of Honour?
Peter Martin
Tony Vickers
cim
Rif Winfield
Diana Simpson
14 Comments
I have a dream wherby woolas’ career ends in shame and disgrace! Oh wait….
Helen Mountfield is a QC. James Laddie is not!
And the Human Rights Act 1998 is distinct from the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. ;o)
This case will turn on (a) whether the statements made by Woolas were of fact and (b) whether they were about Watkins’ personal conduct and character.
I ownder what Joanna Lumley thinks of this….
I know plenty of Labour people who dislike Woolas and the way he campaigned.
Have those Labour people loudly and publicly called for the ejection of Woolas from the Labour Party, Nich Starling?
Nich makes an interesting point. In the Miranda Grell case, as I understand it she was partly undone by evidence against her given by her (Labour) running mate. In this case the quotes from an internal campaign team email (“we have to make the white folk angrey”) suggests that someone from Labour may have been leaking …
I think that the court can demand certain written docs. And to refuse or deny them is contempt of court. So why hasn’t woolas’ diary there?
David Miliband really can pick ’em. Amusingly, with this once-in-a-century trial going on in Oldham, MiliD chooses Woolas to help run his campaign and represent him at hustings. And today the Daily Mail publishes a photo of him with Miranda Grell, who rather famously was kicked out of office for trying to destroy some poor man’s life with accusations of paedophilia.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311491/Labour-MP-Phil-Woolas-accused-stirring-race-hate-win-white-vote.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
“we have to make the white folk angry” is of course a disgraceful way for Woolas to campaign. However, it doesn’t break electoral law.
You’re right of course, David Allen.
But that isn’t the crux of Watkins’ case.
Why not pop over to the Oldham MBC website to read the court petition. Then you can pick your own favourite alleged corrupt practice.
http://www.oldham.gov.uk/election-petition-may2010-part1.pdf
http://www.oldham.gov.uk/election-petition-may2010-part2.pdf
http://www.oldham.gov.uk/election-petition-may2010-part3.pdf
Here is the only coverage I could find on BBC News online: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/arifansari/2010/09/oldham_east_and_saddleworth_el.html
Thanks for the references Helen. Absolutely appalling stuff. But I still fear that if the genuinely actionable is not very clearly separated out from the merely objectionable, Watkins will lose.