News

News feeds |

MP's 'silly mistakes' over election return

By LUCY MILLARD - 13-03-1999

Silly mistakes were made by Newark MP Mrs Fiona Jones in her election return, the Crown Court was told on Monday. 

But her barrister Mr Roy Amlot QC said this was not the case with the big issues. "This is where we lock horns with the prosecution," he said.

Mr Amlot said they disagreed with the way the prosecution had presented the case and its approach to the law. Mr Amlot said: "We fundamentally differ from the prosecution on the way it has been factually presented.

"We say they are wrong about voter identification, they are wrong about the office in Paxton's Court and are wrong about the alleged use of the Toyota."

He told the jury they had to decide if Mrs Jones and Mr Whicher had deliberately falsified their return, whether they had been dishonest and whether they had been corrupt.

He said the law was very uncertain over election expenses and there was nothing set in stone.

He said Mrs Jones had always had in mind that the expenses were triggered when she was formally adopted as the Labour candidate at the end of March.

Mr Amlot said it was the same approach taken by the Liberal Democrat candidate Mr Peter Harris.

"Candidates must have a yard-stick, a marker to decide when the election expenses should begin." he said.

On Tuesday Mrs Jones told the court the Toyota car had been hired to get her round the constituency and she had travelled about 80 miles a day in it.

She said once the election had been called she used it to travel to work and for personal use to get from A to B.

"There was never any election material or posters put in the car," she said. "It was never considered a campaign vehicle."

She was asked about a witness who had recalled seeing her in a red car in the week-long cavalcade around all the villages in the election run-up.

She said she had always been a passenger in a Land Rover so she could use the loud-speaker system. She said she may have used her car to get to the cavalcade's starting point.

Mrs Jones said in her experience nobody put the cost of a car on a return when it was on a personal loan or on lease.

She said in retrospect there could be an implication because her car had been paid for by the constituency but it did not occur to her at the time. Mrs Jones said after being elected she was soon summoned to London.

She arrived with no office and nowhere to live and had to sort herself out quickly.

"It was difficult and stressful." she said. "The period after the elections was fairly chaotic and involved an enormous amount of travelling." She said she had a hazy memory of the time when she dealt with the electoral return.

She said Mr Whicher had assured her that all invoices had been received and there were no outstanding bills.

Towards the end of May she earmarked some time to sit down with Mr Whicher and complete the return. Mr Amlot asked her:

"Did you sign that declaration in the knowledge or belief that any part was false?"

Mrs Jones replied: "Absolutely not." She admitted she had misunderstood part of the return under the heading receipts.

It actually meant income but she assumed it referred to receipts for outgoings and payments they had made.

Mr Amlot asked her when the election expenses were triggered and did she regard a particular day as the catalyst. She said in her view the expenses were triggered when the General Election was declared.

Her election campaign started, she said, after her adoption meeting on March 29, 1997. Mr Amlot took Mrs Jones through a list prepared by the prosecution saying where the alleged expenses were either not declared or under-declared.

The list included a British Telecom bill for £1,658. Mrs Jones said a substantial amount of that would have been incurred on voter identification work which she felt was not an election expense.

The amount declared for phones, office and use of computer equipment on the election return was £350. She said bills for computer equipment were not election expenses nor was a post office bill for £46 because it was from a time outside the election period.

Mrs Jones said it had been a mistake not to include part of a £185 bill for posters. A bill for £76 for three extra days' Land Rover hire was not included, she said, because they did not have the invoice when they were working on the return.

Click here to go back a page