,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
A truly execrable, as well as dangerous, judgment The submissions of defence counsel, quoted in the judgment (judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…), are obviously right. Political claims made in an election campaign fall nowhere near the kernel of the offence...
A public official does not act as such when campaigning. The rejection of this submission by the judge was palpably weak...
The implications of this judgment are far reaching indeed-the courts curating and managing what *political* claims can be made in a campaign That is why it is an election offence only to make false statements about *personal* character (s 106 Representation of the Ppl Act 1983)..
...Moreover, no consideration appears to have been given to Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR (the right to free elections). In very extensive case law, the Strasbourg Court has accepted restrictions on what can be said about personal character by distinguishing...
...between the nature of political and personal claims. False claims about the latter affect the ability of a candidate to be considered fairly in what is the election of an individual. Political claims, on the other hand, can and should be debated and decided about openly...
...And it is entirely wrong for the courts - particularly the criminal courts - to make judgment on the truth or otherwise of political claims.
This decision should be judicially reviewed and I’m confident it will be overturned.
This decision should be judicially reviewed and I’m confident it will be overturned.
