A High Court judge has decide if Reform UK candidate Matt Goodwin should face sanctions over election leaflets that breached rules in the Gorton and Denton by-election
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage (right) and Reform UK’s Gorton and Denton by-election candidate Matt Goodwin opening their campaign headquarters in Malbern Business Park, Denton, earlier this month(Image: PA)
A High Court judge has decided whether Reform UK candidate Matt Goodwin should face sanction after election leaflets breached legal rules. The judge has determined that the Reform UK candidate for the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election will not be sanctioned for a breach of election rules.
GB News presenter Matt Goodwin is standing for the party in the by-election tomorrow (February 26), kickstarted by former Labour MP Andrew Gwynne standing down for health reasons. At a hearing last week, lawyers for the candidate and his election agent, Adam Rawlinson, told the High Court that some of Mr Goodwin’s election leaflets failed to include a “statutory imprint”, which constituted “inadvertent illegal practice”.
At a subsequent three-hour hearing today (February 25), they asked the court to rule that they do not have to face a fine of up to £5,000 for what their barrister described as an “honest administrative error” caused by the company which printed the leaflets. In a ruling, Mr Justice Butcher said he was “satisfied” that the pair should not be sanctioned for the rule breach and had taken “appropriate steps to put it right”.
Click here to prioritise Manchester news in Google from the MEN
He said: “I am satisfied that the relevant act or omission arose from inadvertence or some other reasonable cause of a like nature, and did not arise from a want of good faith.”
He continued: “The evidence satisfies me that during production, an error occurred due to a change of font.” The judge added: “I am satisfied that that was neither requested nor authorised by the claimants.”
The imprint was missing from a leaflet containing an open letter purporting to come from pensioner Patricia Clegg. A number of residents complained earlier this month after the letter was posted through their letter box, saying it had broken electoral law.
She described herself as a 74-year-old pensioner and former Labour voter struggling to pay her bills. Patricia Clegg wrote in the letter: “For me, this by-election comes down to a simple choice: more broken promises for Keir Starmer or real change.
“That’s why I will be voting for Reform UK’s candidate Matthew Goodwin, who grew up in Manchester. Our area deserves someone who will stand up for local people.”
Under the Representation of the People Act 1983, election material must include the name and address of those promoted by the document, the promoter, and the printer.
Failure to do this is classed as an “illegal practice”, which can be punishable by a fine of up to £5,000. However, the letter did not include the ‘imprint’ identifying the promoter, namely Reform UK, required by the Electoral Commission.
The body confirmed any failure to include this was an offence enforceable by the local police, as Greater Manchester Police confirmed it would investigate.
Matt Goodwin faced a three-hour hearing (Image: Sean Hansford | Manchester Evening News)
Adam Richardson, for Mr Goodwin and Mr Rawlinson, told the court in London that the draft versions of the leaflet sent between Mr Goodwin’s team and the printers, Hardings Print Solutions, all included the imprint and were checked “in the usual way multiple times”.
He continued that “for reasons known only to themselves, Hardings decided to put on a different font at the last minute”. He said: “Had (Mr Goodwin and Mr Rawlinson) known that was going to take place, they would have prevented it.”
The barrister also said: “It should not have been done, it was not requested, it is unclear why it did happen, but as a result of that, the imprint was truncated off the bottom.” Mr Richardson continued that the leaflet was sent to around 81,000 people before the issue was raised.
In written submissions, the barrister said that his clients should not be sanctioned as the rule breach was “limited in scope, technical in nature, and had no material impact on the election”. He continued that the Act allows a judge to order that a person should not face consequences for “illegal practice” if it arose from “inadvertence or from accidental miscalculation” and “did not arise from any want of good faith”.
Hardings had “publicly admitted full responsibility for the production error” and the Crown Prosecution Service and the acting returning officer had been made aware of the issue, the barrister said. He told the court: “Without relief, they face the risk of criminal prosecution, a fine, a three-year disqualification from elective office, and, if Mr Goodwin were elected, potential invalidation of the result.”
Lawyers on behalf of the acting returning officer attended the hearing, but made no representations, and no other party was represented.