News

News feeds |

Case rests on office use

By LUCY MILLARD - 19-03-1999

The jury was told yesterday that they may feel the whole case turned on the sum of £500 declared for the use of two offices. 

The judge, Mr Justice Jowitt, said: "If you are not sure it was a dishonest underdeclaration of this expense you are perhaps likely to consider the prosecution cannot succeed in other aspects."

He said there had been evidence both that the Paxton's Court office was taken on as a constituency office and that it had been a campaign office.

He said if the jury considered the Paxton's Court office was primarily or principally a campaign office in readiness to fight the General Election it was reasonable to conclude that for the period before the election it was an expense.

But he said they should take into account that it was also used as a constituency office and by county council election candidates.

The judge said £350 had been put on the return for the use of the Paxton's Court office, the database, computer and telephones on polling day, and £150 for an office in Retford.

Mrs Jones, he said, had told the court they had used common sense to arrive at the figure and covered the use of the office from April 1 to May 1.

Under cross-examination she had said £350 was a reasonable sum for the Newark office.

She had said £100 was for the office and facilities, £20 for utilities and the balance to acknowledge the use of the database and telephones.

The judge said the cost of creating the voter identificaton system database amounted to not less than £2,500.

He said the jury should not trouble themselves with the cost of creating the database but should assess a fair and reasonable charge for its use.

He told them they had to look at the importance of the database's use on polling day to contact Labour supporters and encourage them to vote. They had to judge it against the system's other uses.

The judge told the jury they should dismiss the car hired for Mrs Jones by the constituency Labour party from their considerations. There was no evidence of dishonesty, he said.

He said Mrs Jones could have declared it in her personal travelling expenses which she had said would not affect the permitted maximum spending limit.

The judge said: "You wouldn't expect there to be any dishonesty unless there was some point."

The jury was also told that the hire car used by Mr Whicher had been dropped out of the charge because the prosecution had accepted there was no evidence of any of the hire charge money passing through Mr Whicher's hands.

 

Click here to go back a page