Woolas trial report: day one

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.

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


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.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

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

  • User AvatarMichael BG 25th Aug - 2:38am
    Roger Lake, I didn’t understand that your final income tax line wasn’t a final line at all but the additional taxes for each group adding...
  • User AvatarGlenn 25th Aug - 12:06am
    Andy Hinton The links are more important than a couple of shaved minutes here and there. I sometimes wonder if the real appeal of HS2...
  • User AvatarKatharine Pindar 25th Aug - 12:06am
    Welcome back, Joe, you were missed, but I see you have not been missing much of what is going on! At the moment there is...
  • User AvatarAndy 24th Aug - 11:51pm
    I detest FPTP's simple plurality based system as much as anyone else and desperately want PR (not fussy as to whether MMP or STV). With...
  • User AvatarKatharine Pindar 24th Aug - 11:50pm
    David Warren. Thanks, David for your comment at 2.18 pm. Your article plus your interventions have produced an interesting and varied discussion, with scope for...
  • User AvatarRoger Lake 24th Aug - 11:24pm
    Michael BG "Roger Lake It is clear even from your figures that your UBI scheme does not increase the income for those on benefit enough...
Thu 29th Aug 2019
Mon 9th Sep 2019