This report is from the Lib Dem Voice court reporter. You may also like to read Nick Thornsby’s blog for more trial news

Mr Woolas took the witness box for a third day in a row to answer questions in rebuttal from his own counsel. He insisted that photograph of a demonstrators often referred to in Labour emails as the mad Muslims had nothing to the article beneath which referred to Liberal Democrat candidate Elwyn Watkins pandering to extremists in the Labour leaflet called the Examiner.

Next to be called to the stand was Miss Rebbecca McGladdery, who was a disgruntled former Liberal Democrat worker. This witness had filled in a reply slip on the back of a Focus asking people to become volunteer deliverers. The tenor of her arguments with the Liberal Democrats, whom she had fallen out with, was that she was employed as a telephone canvasser and this was for only £3 per hour and therefore breaking the minimum wage legislation.

Mr Laddie QC took her through her evidence stage by stage. Had she answered an advert in a newspaper? No it was a reply slip on the back of Focus. Were you paid to deliver leaflets? No I was only paid for office work. This last point should be borne in mind for latter when it comes to Mr Fitzpatrick’s testimony.

Miss McGladdery was asked not to come back to the Liberal Democrat offices in late 2009 after she had had a row with another party worker. Sometime after this she presented herself to the Labour party in Oldham and Mr Woolas says in his evidence that she was to be treated just like any other constituent. It is odd then that a whole series of letters were written on her behalf by a Labour party worker. These included a whole series complaints to HMRC, Oldham Borough and Rochdale Borough Council’s Compliance officers.

There was also a complaint to the electoral commission on the expenditure which Miss McGladdery claimed was illegal as sum of £30,000 put into the Watkins campaign, but when pressed by counsel she could not explain how she came by this figure. She also complained to the RSPC about a Lib Dem worker who was neglecting her cat in order to work for the party. There is only one problem: the worker in question does not own a cat.

Miss McGladdery was asked if she had a row with a Lib Dem party worker by the name of Julie O’Brien but she insisted that “No she started a row but that does not mean I didn’t have a row with her.”

McGladdery was asked about her evidence to HMRC and when she was about to be formally interviewed by an inspector, that she was in the Labour office at the time she was supposed to be giving evidence. She admitted that letters were written by a Labour party worker that were attacking Mr Woolas’ Liberal Democrat opponent.

When Mr Joe Fitzpatrick was called to the stand there was a lengthy legal argument over whether he could also be charged with illegal practises as the law does not have prevision for charging the election Agent in an election petition. Because Mr Fitzpatrick was not on the original petition Mr Woolas could apportion the blame for any illegal act firmly at Mr Fitzpatrick’s door. The judges offered Mr Fitzpatrick the chance of consulting an independent counsel, but he declined.

Mr Fitzpatrick was asked how the £200,000 figure had been arrived at, and wasn’t this illegal as the combined long and short campaign expenses are in the region of £38,000. Mr Laddie pointed out that Labour’s own expense cost were in the region of 5p per leaflet, but Mr Fitzpatrick said that the gap was accounted for by the evidence of Miss McGladdery who was a paid deliverer amongst others. It will be remembered that she stated that no payment was made for leaflet delivery.

In an unprompted admission it was acknowledged that the Examiner and Rose leaflets did not go out in Asian areas. Mr Fitzpatrick alleged shady deals were done by the Liberal Democrats with the Bangladeshi community in order to get a new mosque. Irony seems to have passed Mr Fitzpatrick by, as he accused Liberal Democrats say different things in different areas to garner votes.

Mr Fitzpatrick was losing his temper at one point and asked “Is [Mr Laddie] allowed to call me a liar?”. The senior most judge replied that “He is making his case Mr Fitzpatrick”. Mr Fitzpatrick said that since the case started he was now inclined to report the matter to the police as he believed that the expenditure was £200,000. It is worth remembering that on Labour’s figures that our leaflets would cost 40p per leaflet.

Mr Fitzpatrick was taken through an Muslim political action committee MPAC which attacked Mr Woolas over his supposed shortcomings with the Muslim community and his hostility to the hijab. Mr Laddie pointed out that this was the type of thing which could have been put out by any of the political parties, including the Liberal Democrats. Joe Fitzpatrick spat back that “Even the Liberal Democrats would not stoop so low.”

One of the central questions of the case is when did Labour know Elwyn had moved into the constituency? Mr Fitzpatrick refused to accept that Mr Watkins was living in Delph even when he had reports of him living in rent accommodation in the village. He was merely pretending to live in the constituency according to Mr Fitzpatrick. Mr Laddie asked why didn’t you call around and see him as Elwyn offered in a press release? “I have never spoken to him because he’s the sort of chap who won’t speak to you.”

The case continues.