News

News feeds |

Jones trial judge erred

By LUCY MILLARD - 23-04-1999

Neither of the two main grounds in the prosecution of Fiona Jones and her election agent Des Whicher were capable of supporting a conviction for election fraud, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Bingham, said yesterday. 

Mrs Jones (42) of Church Road, Saxilby, and Mr Des Whicher (73) of George Street, Newark, were both in the Court of Appeal in London to hear why their convictions had been quashed in the same court a week earlier.

Mrs Jones was accompanied by her son Penri (9) and Labour whip Graham Allen. Mr Whicher was with his wife Joan and daughter Dr Carole Whicher.

Link to BBC interview with Fiona Jones. © BBC.


Lord Bingham, sitting with Mr Justice Moses and Mr Justice Penry-Davey, said that early in his direction the trial judge, Mr Justice Jowitt, had summarised the relevant law on election expenses very fairly, very fully and very accurately.


"No criticism can, in our judgment, be properly made of those early directions," he said.

However, the judge had in their view fallen into error later when dealing with the Paxton's Court office.

Lord Bingham said it was essential to direct the jury to consider whether the notional rental was an expense incurred for the promotion of the interests of Mrs Jones as opposed to any value the office had in raising the party's profile.

Said Lord Bingham: "On the evidence in this case we question whether any jury, properly directed, could have concluded that the rental for Paxton's Court before the latter part of March was clearly disclosable as an election expense."

He said that even if the jury was entitled to conclude it was an election expense there was no evidence entitling them to conclude the non-disclosure was dishonest.

Said Lord Bingham: "If the jury convicted, or may have convicted, on this ground we consider the convictions unsafe."

He said the judge had bent over backwards to be fair to Mrs Jones and Mr Whicher in his direction over the cost of creating a database of voters' intentions.

He said it seemed clear the judge intended to assist the defence but in practice it caused special difficulties for them.

The defence had not been able to explore the proper sum to allow for the use of the database, nor to look at past practice in the constituency.

There was no evidence on which the prosecution could rely to suggest the £100 allowance made by Mrs Jones and Mr Whicher was too low.

Said Lord Bingham: "We are clearly of the opinion that any conviction which was, or may have been, based on this ground is unsafe.

"Neither of the two main grounds on which the prosecution relied is thus capable of supporting a conviction."

Lord Bingham said a considerable number of further arguments had been given on behalf of Mrs Jones and Mr Whicher both orally and in writing.

"Since it is in our judgment clear that both appeals must be allowed and both convictions quashed we do not think it would serve any useful purpose to review these arguments," he said.

He ruled that both their costs should be met from central funds.

Afterwards Mrs Jones said she was very pleased with the judgment and said she would be studying closely what had been said.

"Obviously the law is not clear. There is a need for a change," she said.

Mr Whicher said he, too, was delighted with the judgment, which completely vindicated them.

He said he was particularly pleased with the comments about his honesty.

Lord Bingham said the prosecution evidence had come from Mrs Jones' opponents in a local party riven by personal animosity.

He said there were substantial grounds for viewing the evidence with grave scepticism.

"We would certainly not regard it as safe to uphold the conviction of Mr Whicher on this ground alone," said Lord Bingham.

 

Click here to go back a page