I would like to bring to your attention a national scandal that has been disgracefully ignored by politicians and the media.  It concerns fraudulent postal voting.  Needless to say, that is a matter going to the heart of our system of government, and indeed one of the defining features of our way of life – democracy.

The case of Ali v Bashir [2013] EWHC 2572 (QB) before Judge Richard Mawrey may be found free on the website Bailii (the charity which publishes judgments online
for free): http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?
doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/2572.html&
query=Ali+and+v+and+Bashir&method=boolean

It is a long judgment, but the salient points are as follows:

1.  This is the High Court of England and Wales.  It does not deal with low level fraud or minor activities. Only matters involving large sums of money or, as here, matters of public significance are permitted to proceed to trial.

2.  The proceedings concerned the election of the first defendant, Bashir, to the Maybury and Sheerwater Ward of Woking Borough Council in May 2012, by a narrow majority of 16 votes.

The High Court held that:

(i) On the evidence, there had been a high proportion of postal votes to personal votes in the ward. There had also been abnormally high turnout figures, well beyond the natural expectations of a keenly-contested election. All the classic indicators of electoral fraud had been present in the ward (see [126], [129], [130], [132] of the judgment).

Viewing the properties as a whole, there was no doubt that false registration and false votes, both personal and postal, had been widespread in the ward. The evidence was overwhelming that the frauds had been perpetrated by B’s team of close relatives and associates (see [262] -[263] of the judgment).

(ii) Applying the criminal standard of proof, the widespread corruption could be reasonably supposed to have affected the result of the election. B was, by himself and by his agents, guilty of corrupt practices contrary to the 1983 Act. The election of B would be declared voided by corrupt or illegal practices. B was incapable of being elected to the ward (see [266], [273]-[276] of the judgment). Mr Bashir was deprived of his seat.

This is not the first time such fraud has been uncovered.  The judge, Commissioner Mawrey QC, lost his temper in a most unjudicial fashion because of the utter failure of the authorities to act.  He finished with the following:

“Afterword”

“279. The Birmingham judgment[1] was the first arising from mass electoral fraud resulting directly from the introduction of postal voting on demand. I had hoped that, by drawing attention to the flawed basis of the scheme and the opportunities it had created for vote-rigging on an industrial scale, public and Parliament would be alerted to the problem and that something might be done about it.”

“280. I was wrong.”

“281. In Slough, where the problem of roll-stuffing came to the fore and where the combined effect of a wholly insecure registration system and postal voting on demand had allowed the creation of phantom armies of ‘ghost voters’, once again I hoped that some action might be taken.”

“282. I was wrong again.”

“283. Nine years have passed since the fraudulent Birmingham election and five since the Slough judgment. The media and the public are fully alive to the threat that electoral fraud poses to our democracy. The politicians are in denial and, it must be said, the approach of the Electoral Commission would appear optimistic even to Dr Pangloss.”

“284. I concluded the Birmingham Judgment with the words:

The systems to deal with fraud are not working well. They are not working badly. The fact is that there are no systems to deal realistically with fraud and there never have been. Until there are, fraud will continue unabated.”

“285. And the Slough Judgment with:

It would have been pleasant to conclude this judgment by saying that this had now all changed. But I cannot. Despite the 2006 Act, the opportunities for easy and effective electoral fraud remain substantially as they were on 4th April 2005.”

“286. And here we are again.”

Ageing Albion continues

Virtually all wrongdoing in all of the cases was traced to people with obviously Pakistani-Islamic names. It would appear that the media and politicians are paralysed by a fear of upsetting anyone or rocking the multicultural boat – just as they were with the sex gangs who assaulted young girls for so long with the authorities failing to act[2].

This is bad enough (but sadly to be expected) from the mainstream media.  It is contemptible from politicians, and confirms why the general public generally despises the political class.  But from the Electoral Commission it constitutes a gross dereliction of duty.  And for all of us it constitutes an assault on the fabric of our society.

References

[1] [From the Editor] The 2005 Birmingham judgement, also by Commissioner (Judge) Richard Mawrey QC, convicted 6 Pakistani Labour candidates of electoral fraud in the 2004 local elections and ordered new elections without the six, but also scathingly criticised the Birmingham Chief Executive Officer, Lin Homer, who was the returning officer at the election. Homer defended her role at the election as “motivational management and firefighting”. Shortly afterwards, in August 2005, she was appointed head of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, described later as “not fit for purpose” by the Home Secretary of the day, John Reid. In 2013 Homer’s tenure 2008-10 at its successor organisation, the UK Border Agency, was criticised by the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee for its “catastrophic leadership failure”. In 2010 Homer was appointed the Civil Service head of the Transport Department when she and her department were accused by Sir Richard Branson of Virgin Trains of ignoring concerns about the West line letting process, causing its cancellation at an estimated cost of £100 million. In 2011 Homer, with no financial or non-personal tax experience whatever, was appointed head of the UK’s tax collection system (HMRC). In March 2013 HMRC was criticised by the UK Public Accounts Select Committee for its “unambitious and woefully inadequate performance”. No male could possibly have survived Homer’s record of failure in this succession of highly important positions. Why, in these supposedly egalitarian days, is she allowed to continue? See“Immigration Scandals Continue” posted in 2011 [Ed].

[2] [From the Editor] In this connection it is important to note that the Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer at the Woking election, Mr Ray Morgan, was also, along with Bashir, a defendant in the case. However, Judge Mawrey commended Mr Morgan (para. 267) for “running a tight ship” and noted Mr Morgan’s frustration that he couldn’t do more to “nip electoral fraud in the bud.”

Clearly when people in public office can’t do their jobs properly for whatever reason, then the structure of any society will collapse.

 Email this article