Martin Mullaney, Councillor for Moseley & Kings Heath, Birmingham

Aston and Bordesley Green Vote Fraud Trial

Wednesday 2nd March 2005

1
1 Wednesday, 2nd March 2005
2 (10.30 am)
3 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Sukul, could you introduce the parties
4 appearing.
5 MR SUKUL: Sir, I am afraid I have not had the opportunity
6 of making a record of my learned friends' names and
7 their details.
8 THE COMMISSIONER: In which case I had better find out.
9 You are for the petitioners.
10 MR SUKUL: I am.
11 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Coppel I know is for the Returning
12 Officer. I know that Mr Brook is for the DPP.
13 Mr Hayes?
14 MR HAYES: I am for Mr Islam and Mr Kazi.
15 MS BARKER: I am for Mr Afzal, the second respondent.
16 Ms Barker.
17 THE COMMISSIONER: As I indicated in the case of the
18 Bordesley Green petition, the form the proceedings will
19 take is this: the counsel for the petitioners will be
20 invited to make a short oral opening because a written
21 opening has already been lodged with the court.
22 Then I shall invite Mr Hayes and Ms Barker to say
23 whether they wish to make a short opening statement on
24 behalf of their respective respondents. Mr Coppel will
25 then do so on behalf of the Returning Officer and
2
1 Mr Brook has the final word on behalf of the DPP.
2 Following that, it will be up to Mr Sukul to call
3 his evidence, which will be open to cross-examination by
4 those representing the four respondents and, if
5 considered appropriate, by the Director.
6 That seems to me all I need to do except to remind
7 everybody who has not been part of the Bordesley Green
8 petition that the court hours are 10.30 until 1.00 and
9 2.00 until 4.15 or 4.30, whenever we reach a convenient
10 moment.
11 Mr Sukul?
12 MR SUKUL: Sir, before I proceed reading the prepared
13 opening speech, I would just like to mention to the
14 court this: that in very recent times there have been
15 significant developments that may affect the method by
16 which this trial would proceed, and indeed the length of
17 time which it may take.
18 Sir, I have in fact with me two opening speeches,
19 a copy of the first one has been filed, and there has
20 been some amendment. The reason for that is that these
21 developments to which I have referred are very central
22 to what will be put and what will be included in the
23 opening speech.
24 Some of the developments include very recent service
25 upon those who I represent of representation by legal
3
1 counsel in favour of the second respondent. The first
2 and the third respondents are also represented by
3 a gentleman who I have met for the first time, the
4 pleasure was mine to meet with him for the first time
5 this morning.
6 There has been additional material which has not
7 been served. One additional bundle has to be prepared
8 by the petitioners for the benefit of the gentleman who
9 is representing the first and third respondents.
10 In short, I would say there is a requirement for us
11 to have a brief adjournment so that matters can be put
12 in order, which would facilitate the opening by myself.
13 There is just one --
14 THE COMMISSIONER: How long are you asking for?
15 MR SUKUL: Sir, I am not the only person who is asking for
16 time.
17 THE COMMISSIONER: How long is being asked for?
18 MR SUKUL: I would estimate perhaps an hour would suffice
19 for the matters that I have to address along with the
20 man who sits on my left, but it may well be that those
21 who sit on my right might have additional temporal
22 requirements.
23 THE COMMISSIONER: Let me first of all enquire. The first
24 and third respondents, that is you, Mr Hayes, so you are
25 as it were first in the batting order.
4
1 MR HAYES: I am first in the firing line.
2 THE COMMISSIONER: Firing inwards or outwards?
3 MR HAYES: Both. Sir, you are well aware of the
4 difficulties. I have been brought in at the very last
5 moment. I understand from my learned friend, who has
6 been most helpful, that there are three unified lever
7 arch files. They are presently being prepared for me.
8 I have not had the opportunity of reading them because
9 I have not been served them. That is no criticism of my
10 learned friend. We only got funding yesterday.
11 THE COMMISSIONER: What is your position, Ms Barker?
12 MS BARKER: My position is similar. I was instructed
13 yesterday. I have not seen the lever arch files.
14 Counsel initially instructed should be here tomorrow
15 morning, it is hoped.
16 THE COMMISSIONER: You are holding the brief for somebody
17 else?
18 MS BARKER: I am here today and tomorrow. The case was
19 originally listed for Friday.
20 THE COMMISSIONER: It was never listed for Friday. It was
21 originally provisionally listed for next Monday but on
22 the basis that if we finished Bordesley Green early,
23 there would be an early start for this. I think you may
24 be misinformed.
25 MS BARKER: But either way, I would like to ask for further
5
1 time to at least consider these bundles, which may be
2 more than one hour.
3 THE COMMISSIONER: Do we have a reasonable prospect of
4 getting these bundles in a shape where they can be
5 delivered to Mr Hayes and Ms Barker by 12 o'clock?
6 MR SUKUL: I am told that the bundles are here now.
7 THE COMMISSIONER: I think nonetheless I can give you
8 an hour. Clearly you cannot read them all in an hour
9 and I would not expect you to, but it would give you an
10 opportunity to see the nature of the material.
11 So far as an opening statement on behalf of the
12 three Labour Party respondents is concerned, I would be
13 prepared in the circumstances to say that you can make
14 an opening statement, you need not make an opening
15 statement today, but you can make it when the time comes
16 to open your case.
17 MR HAYES: Sir, that is very helpful.
18 THE COMMISSIONER: That will help you, Mr Hayes, and it will
19 help whoever's brief Ms Barker is holding to get his or
20 her act together because you are unlikely to be opening
21 your case, I would have thought, this week and it is
22 possible that it may be well into next week.
23 MR HAYES: Sir, I am not much of a crystal ball gazer but
24 I do suspect that this case will be significantly
25 shortened by what my learned friend may address you on
6
1 a little bit later.
2 THE COMMISSIONER: I look forward to that with considerable
3 anticipation. Shall we say provisionally 11.30?
4 We will take that in lieu of the morning break as well.
5 If there are real logistical difficulties, send word to
6 me and I will make any adjustments.
7 (10.45 am)
8 (A short break)
9 (11.30 am)
10 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Sukul?
11 MR SUKUL: I am very much obliged, sir. On your desk there
12 is an amended opening statement from the petitioners.
13 It is not very lengthy and I am of the opinion that --
14 first of all, we have new legal representatives on the
15 trial. It might be convenient not only for the benefit
16 of keeping my opening in perspective, but it will also
17 give them an additional indication as to how the postal
18 voting system works.
19 It is only going to take another two or three
20 minutes and I am mindful of the remark that you made,
21 that you would prefer the opening speech to be short.
22 THE COMMISSIONER: There are, of course, two aspects to
23 the case, as you rightly say, Mr Sukul. There is the
24 aspect of the knowledge of the system that I have
25 acquired as a result of sitting in the Bordesley Green
7
1 petition, which of course I have acquired and in a sense
2 do not need to be told again.
3 But on the other hand there is the important public
4 aspect of this and there are a considerable number of
5 people who have not attended court, no reason why they
6 should. It is quite sensible if you were to outline
7 briefly the procedures in relation to postal votes and
8 then go on to say where in your submission matters have
9 gone wrong.
10 MR SUKUL: I am very grateful.
11 Opening submissions by MR SUKUL
12 May it please you, sir. On 10th June 2004 a Local
13 Government election for the Aston ward of the Birmingham
14 City Council was held. The first, second and third
15 respondents were all Labour candidates. The Returning
16 Officer declared that they were duly elected as Labour
17 councillors. Sir, this trial, the trial of this
18 petition, is exclusively concerned with the postal
19 voting procedure for that election.
20 The rules that govern the election procedure are
21 contained in the provisions of the Representation of the
22 People Act 1983. Later on, that will be referred to as
23 the 1983 Act.
24 Sir, the postal voting system is intended to
25 facilitate the lawful casting of votes by voters who
8
1 cannot or who choose not to attend the polling stations.
2 Therefore, the postal voting system assists in improving
3 the proportion of the electorate that would take part
4 in the election.
5 Each ballot allowed the voter to cast three votes.
6 By reason of the evidence that shall be adduced in this
7 trial, the petitioners say that the first, second and
8 third respondents were deeply involved in illegal and
9 corrupt activities and were therefore not duly elected.
10 Further, the petitioners say that the election itself is
11 invalid for the reasons to be summarised shortly.
12 The postal voting procedure is as follows. The
13 voter who wishes to vote by post must complete an
14 application to vote by post form and he must send it to
15 the election office. Completion of this form by the
16 postal voters is central to this trial and therefore
17 just a little time should be spent understanding the
18 requirements of the form.
19 THE COMMISSIONER: Interrupting you there, Mr Sukul,
20 it needs to be stressed, of course, that this is an
21 official form which is to be obtained from the elections
22 office.
23 MR SUKUL: It can only be obtained from the elections
24 office.
25 THE COMMISSIONER: It originates in the elections office,
9
1 but no doubt if photocopies were taken they could
2 lawfully be distributed.
3 MR SUKUL: Photocopies of the original form is lawful.
4 MR COPPEL: Sir, may I interrupt. It need not be an
5 official form. The parties can and do prepare their own
6 forms and that is acceptable. There is not a prescribed
7 form under the rules.
8 THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.
9 MR SUKUL: The form in whatever form it takes, whether it be
10 original, photocopied or drafted by hand, the form
11 however must contain the voter's name and address.
12 The form must contain the voter's signature or mark.
13 The form must be dated. What is very important is
14 this -- the form contains these words:
15 "Each person has to sign their own form. It is an
16 offence to make a false statement on the form. The
17 maximum fine is £5,000."
18 My understanding is that that is to be amended to
19 include a term of imprisonment for a breach of that
20 rule.
21 When completed, the form is received at the
22 elections office. The elections office staff will check
23 the electoral register to confirm that the postal vote
24 applicant is eligible to vote and, if that is so, will
25 despatch the postal vote documents to the applicant by
10
1 post to his address.
2 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Sukul, I think I do need to interrupt
3 you there because the clear evidence I have received in
4 Bordesley Green, and indeed it is confirmed by Mr Owen
5 in that case, is that under the relevant regulations
6 it is permissible for someone who applies for a postal
7 vote to ask for the postal vote documents to be sent to
8 a nominated address, which need not be the address at
9 which he is registered as an elector.
10 The allegation is certainly made in that trial that
11 forged applications for a postal vote involved
12 a direction to send the postal voting documents to
13 addresses other than the address of the elector,
14 obviously in order to facilitate the fraud. That is the
15 allegation made in Bordesley Green. It has to be
16 emphasised that under the rules you do not have to
17 specify that the postal documents are sent to your own
18 home, they may be sent to any address that you nominate.
19 MR SUKUL: I hear what you say, sir. In that regard it is
20 lawful for the postal vote documents to be sent to an
21 address other than that at which the voter himself
22 resides.
23 The postal vote documents are important. They
24 comprise this: there is a yellow ballot paper, A4 sized.
25 That ballot paper allows the voter to cast three votes.
11
1 THE COMMISSIONER: It is larger than A4. It is larger than
2 A4 because if you have a large number of candidates you
3 can have a document that is almost double A4 in length.
4 MR SUKUL: Sir, yes.
5 The yellow ballot paper need not be A4 sized; it
6 could be larger and probably was in this case. But in
7 any event, what it does is this: the names and the boxes
8 into which the voter will put his mark or his tick or
9 his X -- that will indicate which of the candidates he
10 wants to vote for.
11 He is allowed to vote for three candidates. That is
12 a free choice that he has. In addition to the ballot
13 paper, there is another document known as a declaration
14 of identity to which I will refer as DOI later. That
15 document is white in colour and it is about the size of
16 an A4 sheet.
17 There is also an envelope marked A, and there is
18 another envelope bigger than the envelope A, and that is
19 marked B. Sir, this particular envelope B has
20 a transparent window where the address of the elections
21 office is actually shown through. The DOI has the
22 address at the bottom so when it is folded and put into
23 envelope B, the elections office address can be seen by
24 the postman or indeed anybody else.
25 There is also a sheet of instructions which is
12
1 included in the postal vote documents. There is also
2 a white ballot paper enclosed with the postal documents
3 but that is not in issue in this trial.
4 What is in issue is this: the ballot paper, the DOI
5 form and the envelope A all carry a corresponding unique
6 elector number. This allows the three documents to be
7 matched with each other, by comparing the corresponding
8 elector numbers which are printed on them.
9 Sir, the postal voter decides which three candidates
10 he wishes to vote for and makes his marks on the ballot
11 paper, he marks the ballot paper with his three marks,
12 Xs or ticks accordingly. What he does is this: he then
13 places the ballot paper in envelope A, then he seals
14 envelope A.
15 The reason behind that is because it is of absolute
16 importance that a voter or indeed the means or method of
17 the choice of the voter is not disclosed to any person
18 other than himself. It is a very personal, private
19 thing, hence the reason why the envelope A is sealed
20 with the ballot paper at that point in time.
21 What he has with him now is a sealed envelope A,
22 which incidentally is about A5 size. Just about that
23 size (indicating).
24 The DOI form is a single sheet document. It is
25 divided into two parts, part 1 and part 2. In part 1 of
13
1 the DOI form the voter must sign or make his mark. That
2 is all he does, he signs or makes his mark. When I say
3 "he", that includes she as well. The voter's signature
4 or mark must be witnessed, that is a requirement under
5 election law.
6 In part 2 of the DOI form, the person who has
7 witnessed the voter's signature must sign his own
8 signature and write his name and his address. The
9 petitioners say this, that where the witness makes his
10 signature he need not him or herself write his name and
11 address. Once his name and address is written, provided
12 that the name and the address written there are true,
13 then that is acceptable. The witness himself does not
14 have to write his own name and address, what he is
15 obliged to do under law is to make his signature.
16 So the voter's signature is recorded on the DOI
17 form. The witness's signature and details are recorded
18 on the DOI form. Both application to vote by post forms
19 and the DOI forms are crucial to this trial because
20 those forms allow a handwriting expert to analyse the
21 handwriting and provide his expert opinion as to the
22 identity of the person or persons who have written on
23 both forms.
24 That particular paragraph that I have read is
25 extremely important to this trial.
14
1 THE COMMISSIONER: To underline that, what you are saying is
2 this: if we have a declaration of identity and an
3 application for a postal vote which appear to be from
4 the same person but have different signatures, it is
5 a reasonable supposition that at least one of them is
6 false?
7 MR SUKUL: Absolutely. I wish I could have written that
8 here, sir.
9 THE COMMISSIONER: You have not had the experience of six
10 days of Bordesley Green!
11 MR SUKUL: Yes, indeed.
12 Once the voter and the witness have completed the
13 DOI form, the voter then places envelope A, which is the
14 small envelope, and the completed DOI form into the big
15 envelope, envelope B.
16 What the voter has with him now is a big envelope
17 inside of which there is a sealed envelope A, in which
18 there is enclosed his ballot paper, and then the big
19 envelope has got the DOI form as well.
20 The voter either posts envelope B or delivers it to
21 the election office or takes it to any one of the
22 polling stations before the deadline for voting, which
23 was 10 o'clock at night on Thursday 10th June of last
24 year.
25 Can I just say this: there is going to be some
15
1 suggestion during the course of the evidence that
2 we will hear in this trial, I think, that it is not
3 unlawful for a person with the voter's consent to take
4 the envelope B to the polling station or to the
5 elections office and deposit it there. The petitioners
6 are not going to raise the point to say that once the
7 voter's consent has been given a man can take envelope B
8 for his friend as a matter of convenience and deposit it
9 into the custody of the elections office or indeed any
10 of the polling stations.
11 THE COMMISSIONER: There is no requirement that it must be
12 sent by post or delivered personally by the voter to the
13 elections office or to a polling station.
14 MR SUKUL: Sir, yes.
15 Sir, what is of relevance is this: it is lawful, and
16 I am dealing with the witnessing of a voter's signature
17 here, for any one person to sign as a witness on more
18 than one DOI form. So I can witness DOI forms for the
19 officers and gentleman and lady there; indeed, for
20 everyone who is sitting on that side or even more,
21 providing that, when I attach my signature as a witness,
22 I write my correct name, I write my correct signature,
23 and the address that I put on that form is in fact my
24 then current address of residence.
25 So once I do that, the election law allows me to
16
1 witness multiple voters' signatures. Petitioners do not
2 quarrel about that.
3 THE COMMISSIONER: But it is of course crucial on each
4 occasion, Mr Sukul, that what the witness is witnessing
5 is the genuine signature of the voter.
6 MR SUKUL: What is absolutely crucial is that what the
7 witness is witnessing is the genuine voter's signature.
8 That must be the case, and if that is not the case then
9 of course an inference can be drawn there and then that
10 some form of illegality is in fact taking place in which
11 the witness is playing a part.
12 It is a serious criminal offence for a witness to
13 impersonate a voter. I think I will just spend a few
14 seconds and tell you what that is. To impersonate a
15 voter means what it actually says. It is as if you have
16 assumed the identity of the voter; so if Mr John Smith
17 is entitled to vote in the Aston election and I happen
18 to take possession of his documents and I am not sure as
19 to whether or not he will attend or I want to take
20 a chance on whether or not he will attend and vote
21 himself, I can take his documents, sign his name, and
22 vote for the party that I want to vote for. Because
23 that might be different from what Mr Smith wants to vote
24 for it means therefore I have impersonated Mr Smith.
25 That is a criminal offence, it is a criminal offence
17
1 under the 1983 Act, it is the offence of impersonation
2 and in fact it is so serious that you could be sent to
3 prison if you commit the offence of impersonation.
4 It is set out in part of the 1983 Act.
5 THE COMMISSIONER: It also covers the person who turns up
6 at the polling station pretending to be a genuine voter
7 when he is not.
8 MR SUKUL: It does cover that eventuality. It is also
9 a serious criminal offence, sir, for anyone to forge
10 a voter's signature. Indeed it is a criminal offence to
11 forge anybody's signature but of course here we are
12 concerned about the mischief that took place in the
13 Aston elections.
14 On the date appointed for the counting of the votes,
15 the Returning Officer opens envelope B, the big one, and
16 in the presence of witnesses, which may include agents
17 of the relevant parties, the Returning Officer inspects
18 the DOI form to ensure that it is signed by a voter and
19 that the witness name and address is written on the form
20 to which the signature or his signature is attested.
21 That is what the Returning Officer should do.
22 THE COMMISSIONER: Can I just pick you up there. It is
23 of course open to the Returning Officer to open envelope
24 B and carry out the verification process ahead of the
25 opportunity for the counting. I think we will hear in
18
1 this, as we did in the Bordesley Green petition, that
2 the elections office carried out the verification
3 process of postal votes in advance of polling day but
4 of course the votes were not counted in advance of the
5 polling day.
6 MR SUKUL: That is quite true. I think I should not have
7 said, "on the date appointed". It could be on the date
8 appointed or prior to the date appointed that the
9 verification procedure can be carried out.
10 THE COMMISSIONER: Verification can also lawfully be carried
11 out after the close of poll provided the vote was
12 delivered before the close of poll and, indeed, we will
13 probably hear that because of the number of postal votes
14 verification of some votes was carried out after the
15 close of poll but clearly in respect of votes that were
16 delivered before.
17 MR SUKUL: Quite right, sir.
18 The Returning Officer, having opened at whichever
19 time he chooses to do it, the Returning Officer then
20 compares the unique elector number printed on the DOI,
21 the form, and he compares that with the unique number
22 printed on the small envelope A. If there is a match,
23 then the sealed envelope A is confirmed as being
24 validated at this point in time, that is the validation
25 procedure. And the DOI is placed into a receptacle.
19
1 The validated sealed envelope A is opened to inspect
2 the ballot paper to ensure that the same unique elector
3 number printed on the back of the ballot paper and the
4 unique elector number printed on the envelope A are
5 identical.
6 The Returning Officer carries out these checks.
7 Provided these checks are positive, the Returning
8 Officer places the ballot paper in a sealed ballot box
9 for him to count later.
10 That little procedure explains in summary form what
11 the postal voting system and procedure is all about save
12 of course if I may have omitted anything that is of some
13 significance in the postal voting system.
14 This trial is all to do with allegations made by the
15 petitioners as against the respondents and all four of
16 them. The respondents come into two categories:
17 respondents 1, 2, and 3 are in one category, respondent
18 4 is the Returning Officer.
19 I will just deal with the first three respondents
20 and what the petitioners say is this: the petitioners'
21 allegations against the respondents Mr Islam, Mr Afzal
22 and Mr Kazi, Mr Islam being the first respondent,
23 Mr Afzal being the second respondent and Mr Kazi being
24 the third, goes like this.
25 Firstly, from what I have been told it is no secret
20
1 that the petitioners' legal team spent some four hours
2 interviewing six police officers, including one police
3 inspector and two police sergeants, late yesterday
4 afternoon. That is in fact evidenced by Her Majesty's
5 Constabulary, who sit towards my left.
6 In summary, the petitioners allege that Mr Islam,Mr
7 Afzal and Mr Kazi, in association with other persons
8 whose identities are being currently investigated, were
9 significantly and personally involved in corruption and
10 other illegal conduct as well as electoral malpractices.
11 It is contended by the petitioners that the
12 corruption, illegal conduct and breach of election rules
13 reached such levels of proliferation that they have
14 extensively prevailed and that the corruption and
15 illegalities were intended to ensure that Labour Party
16 candidates were elected and the election has been drawn
17 inextricably into question by this honourable court.
18 In more specific form, the petitioners say this: as
19 against Mr Mohammed Nazrul Islam, he impersonated six
20 voters and/or forged the signatures of six voters, he
21 adopted five false identities, he declared that he was
22 residing at multiple addresses when in fact he was not,
23 and then he conspired with Mr Azfal and Mr Kazi to
24 commit electoral fraud with intent to deceive the
25 Returning Officer.
21
1 Those are the matters against Mr Islam. As against
2 all three, the petitioners say this: all three men were
3 deeply involved in the unlawful collection of unsealed
4 postal ballots, the unlawful handling of unsealed postal
5 ballots, the unlawful marking of postal ballots, the
6 unlawful conveyance of postal ballots to an unauthorised
7 location --
8 THE COMMISSIONER: Unauthorised or authorised?
9 MR SUKUL: An unauthorised.
10 THE COMMISSIONER: I will correct your written opening.
11 MR SUKUL: Finally perverting the course of justice.
12 Dealing with the law that is applicable to this
13 trial, it is said in section 127 of the 1983 Act that
14 the petitioners can question an election on the
15 following basis: the petitioners can claim that
16 a successful candidate was at the time of the election
17 disqualified. That is not applicable in this trial.
18 What is applicable is this: the petitioners can
19 question the election because the successful candidate
20 was not duly elected. They can question the election
21 because of corrupt and illegal practices that were
22 involved in the whole election process, and they can
23 question the validity of the election by saying "Look,
24 the election is voided because of general corruption
25 that took place during the election process, or
22
1 a corrupt agent was employed and was active during the
2 same election process".
3 The election court under section 145(1) of the 1983
4 Act in all cases is required at the conclusion of the
5 trial in a few days from now -- and that is a duty for
6 the court.
7 "The court must determine whether the person whose
8 election is complained of or any and what other person
9 was duly elected or whether the election was in fact
10 void, and the determination so certified by the court
11 shall be final to all intents as to the matters at issue
12 in this petition."
13 You have heard a number of matters which are in
14 issue in this petition, and there are more.
15 Section 143(3):
16 "Where the allegation made in the petition is that
17 election was ...(reading to the words)... or illegal
18 practices, the task of the election court extends beyond
19 the determination of the Section 145 issue."
20 That is defined as follows:
21 "Where a charge is made in the petition of any
22 corrupt or illegal practice having been committed at the
23 election, the court shall, in addition to giving
24 a certificate and at the same time, make a report in
25 writing to the High Court, as required by Section 158
23
1 and Section 160, and also state whether any corrupt
2 practices have extensively prevailed at the election
3 in the area of the Authority for which the election was
4 held or in any electoral area of the Authority's area."
5 The petitioners have brought this to court and must
6 therefore prove the allegations to the requisite
7 standard.
8 Insofar as the allegations of any criminal offence
9 are concerned, the petitioners carry the burden of
10 adducing such evidence and must make the court sure that
11 these offences were committed.
12 Can I say this about the standard of proof: it is
13 right to say that the petitioners make these allegations
14 against the respondents. It is a matter for this court
15 to determine the standard to which the petitioners must
16 prove their case. In fairness to the respondents, and
17 because this document was written by my hand and
18 I represent the petitioners, I am taking my task and my
19 duty to the highest.
20 I am saying that the petitioners are to prove their
21 case as against the respondents insofar as the
22 allegation of criminal offences is concerned to the
23 criminal standard, which is that it is the petitioners'
24 duty to bring or to adduce such evidence that will make
25 this court sure that the allegations they make are
24
1 actually founded.
2 This is also important: there is no requirement in
3 law for the petitioners to prove the identity of the
4 perpetrator of any offence which the petitioners allege
5 may have been committed. Let me just tell you a little
6 bit about the petitioners' evidence. The petitioners
7 will submit that the extent of the corrupt practices and
8 the illegalities that prevail would make the inference
9 irresistible that such electoral malfeasance has
10 precipitated upon the election in which Mr Islam, Mr
11 Afzal and Mr Kazi could not be duly elected.
12 In other words, when the evidence is presented, any
13 reasonable person will find it hard to resist drawing
14 the inference that so much has happened during the
15 election that it must be the case that the three
16 respondents could not be duly elected because of the
17 proliferation of criminal activity, corrupt practices
18 and illegalities.
19 The petitioners will adduce evidence that
20 conclusively proves that two days before the election,
21 at just about midnight, Mr Islam, Mr Afzal and Mr Kazi
22 and their Labour Party ward organiser, Mr Zulfikar Khan,
23 were seen leaving the campaign office at Witton Road,
24 carrying several bags into the car. They were seen to
25 drive to a deserted warehouse in the middle of the night
25
1 somewhere in the Witton/Birch (?) Road area.
2 Because of suspicion, the police were alerted and
3 the police drove to the warehouse, arriving there after
4 midnight. The police saw Mr Islam on his own, and
5 you will hear evidence of this, just about to leave the
6 warehouse. The police stopped him, turned him back,
7 entered the warehouse.
8 In a large room the police saw a 10-foot long table
9 and chairs. The police saw six Asian men present.
10 The police saw hundreds of documents and unsealed
11 envelopes B, the little one, the sealed one, the one
12 that should be sealed, scattered all over the table.
13 The police, all of them say the unsealed envelopes were
14 A5 sized and the court will hear evidence about that in
15 a matter of minutes.
16 The police confirm there were 275 unsealed postal
17 ballots on that table. That figure is actually specific
18 because at a later stage the police actually counted
19 them.
20 In addition to the ballot papers and envelopes there
21 were other documents the police say that were also
22 present on this 10-foot table. Here we are in the
23 middle of the night in this warehouse and the police and
24 these six men are there -- it is for the court to decide
25 who they are -- and the great table and the large room
26
1 and everything else you have heard so far.
2 Mr Zulfikar Khan was apparently the spokesman on
3 the night, and he engaged the police in conversation.
4 He told the police that he and the others had collected
5 ballot papers, envelopes, et cetera, and were checking
6 to see these were filled in correctly before delivering
7 them to the election office.
8 I think there was some mention that they were
9 assisting voters who were disabled or illiterate or
10 either or both, sadly, so to help them to vote.
11 THE COMMISSIONER: Interrupting there, Mr Sukul, I imagine
12 that you will say that even if that story had been true,
13 they had no right to do it.
14 MR SUKUL: Absolutely.
15 The two officers who arrived at first, incidentally
16 they were WPCs and they are here with us in court today
17 and we are grateful to them, they became quite
18 suspicious about all this. Who would not? These are
19 police officers. You attend a deserted Wrylie warehouse
20 in the middle of the night, half past 12 at night, six
21 Asian men sitting in a room by themselves at a great
22 table, 275 ballot papers on there, and one of them about
23 to leave. The petitioners say, "The amount of cloak and
24 dagger inference there is enough to develop the
25 suspicions of the police officers".
27
1 So the officers sensibly radioed police control and
2 sought some kind of supervision, which is in keeping
3 with the discharge of their duties, and said to the
4 controller "We have a situation here. Send someone who
5 knows about this". The ladies, to me with quite
6 surprising bravery, stayed with those six Asian men.
7 The police sergeant drove to the warehouse. He was
8 perhaps equally brave because he went there on his own.
9 I do not see him in court, but he did.
10 He attended the warehouse on his own so there are
11 three of them there. Of course like the other officers
12 he as well was not convinced about the legality of all
13 of this and he thought, "I have to do something to make
14 sure that what is happening here accords with the law of
15 the land".
16 So this is what happens: in the meantime, two other
17 police officers sitting in court here, they attended the
18 warehouse as well. So by that time we are running into
19 1.30 in the morning and, in fairness to the officers,
20 like myself, they are not completely briefed in election
21 law, they decided, the sergeant decided "I will just
22 take a random sample of votes or a ballot and then
23 I will go to the man who has made the Xs on the ballot
24 and ask the man: did you make these Xs, did you vote for
25 this party?" In fact that is what took place, according
28
1 to the officers.
2 The officers, two officers, armed themselves with
3 the randomly selected declaration of identity form, and
4 it is important that this is explained properly in
5 fairness to the respondents. So the officers have got
6 the DOI and the ballot paper. It is half past one
7 in the morning. From what I have mentioned to you
8 before, there is only one address which is recorded on
9 the DOI, that address belongs to the witness. The
10 officers will tell you, and I cast no aspersion upon
11 them because they are acting under the explanation given
12 to them by Mr Zulfikar Khan, the officers attend the
13 address written on the DOI form and of course, sir, that
14 address belongs to the witness, it does not belong to
15 the voter. It could well be that it belongs to the
16 voter, then of course that will be some kind of
17 a coincidence.
18 Anyway, you will hear from the officers that two
19 officers attend, and there you are at 1.30 in the
20 morning, the voter is ready to confirm or the person who
21 the officer meets at that address is ready to
22 confirm: yes, I have put my Xs in the Labour Party box.
23 The petitioners say that scenario is really fraught
24 with some kind of suspicion that something is not quite
25 right. But my duty to this court is to deal with the
29
1 evidence and also to deal with any reasonable inference
2 that can be derived from facts as we know them to be.
3 THE COMMISSIONER: Putting it in a nutshell, Mr Sukul, what
4 you are saying is these men were operating a vote
5 forging factory?
6 MR SUKUL: Indeed they were.
7 THE COMMISSIONER: At this industrial estate in Witton.
8 That is your case.
9 MR SUKUL: Indeed.
10 THE COMMISSIONER: I have been looking at the map. This
11 estate in Witton, is it in the ward or outside the ward?
12 MR SUKUL: I have to seek help. It was in the old ward, but
13 not in the new ward. People who are more learned than
14 I are with me.
15 THE COMMISSIONER: A voice says it is in Perry Barr.
16 It does not matter, I can check it out on this admirable
17 map that I have behind me, showing the wards.
18 At all events you are saying this is a widespread
19 misuse of postal votes?
20 MR SUKUL: Absolutely. Six men, 275 unsealed ballots. In
21 fact I can take my seat right now, I would say. I can
22 sit right now next to this man and if I had the courage
23 of my convictions quietly invite this court, subject to
24 whatever evidence is going to be produced, and say: if
25 this court believes six men, two of whom are Labour
30
1 candidates, in the middle of the night with this kind of
2 activity, that alone not only opens the door but opens
3 the door so wide, opens the door to the suggestion that
4 there have been corrupt and illegal practices.
5 Nonetheless there is plenty more to come.
6 The officers having had the verification that I
7 mentioned, this man who is up at 1.30 in the morning,
8 waiting for the officer, who tells the officer "Yes,
9 I have put my mark there" -- what is curious is
10 this: he is up at 1.30 in the morning, which means he is
11 going (inaudible) health-wise. Why would he want to
12 give his vote to people who say, "Do not worry about it,
13 we will take it to the elections office for you". All
14 manner of suspicions can reasonably be aroused because
15 of this one incident, which is directly related to the
16 midnight flit at this warehouse.
17 The officers, having been reasonably convinced that
18 all is well, left the warehouse but what took place is
19 this: the officers have to go back to the station and
20 report to the station inspector. The station inspector
21 had the presence of mind to come to the conclusion: no,
22 I am not dealing with this as it is, and I think one of
23 the phrases the inspector used is "We must deal with
24 this positively". You may or may not hear evidence to
25 that effect.
31
1 The station inspector, the man in charge, tells the
2 officers "You must return to the warehouse and seize
3 those votes and papers, those envelopes. You must do
4 that and let us carry out some kind of investigation".
5 But what is perhaps one of the rather curious points is
6 this: this court will hear evidence that when the
7 officers left the warehouse, all the votes and papers
8 were scattered but by the time they got back to make the
9 seizure, every one of those 275 yellow ballot papers
10 were placed neatly in the little envelope A and sealed.
11 You will hear convincing evidence about this and
12 it is for this court to decide what conclusions can be
13 drawn about the activity that took place from the time
14 the officers left the warehouse, and when they returned
15 again, and evidence will be led to show the timings that
16 are involved. What is convincing from the point of view
17 of the evidence that you will hear is that when they
18 left all the ballot papers were scattered everywhere and
19 when they returned, the house was in order or so it
20 seems.
21 The officers seized the 275, and Mr Islam and
22 Mr Kazi were present at the warehouse at all times.
23 You will hear evidence about this. Mr Azfal said that
24 he was not there. The petitioners shall produce cogent
25 evidence to prove conclusively that Mr Azfal was in fact
32
1 with Mr Islam and Mr Kazi at the warehouse and he was
2 handling those 275 unsealed ballot papers.
3 The petitioners' evidence in this regard, and that
4 is the evidence to prove that Mr Azfal was there and was
5 involved in the warehouse activity, shall be in the form
6 of Mr Azfal's mobile telephone records and some
7 associated technical data, which will be presented to
8 this court in due course.
9 The scientists and those technical people will be
10 able to pinpoint where certain telephone calls were made
11 on the night in question, and those calls have been
12 documented as coming from Mr Azfal's own mobile
13 telephone handset which he used.
14 I have written here this: "incidentally". That is
15 the word I have written. Mr Islam said that the police
16 sergeant who attended the warehouse that night, that is
17 the sergeant that I talked about before, the one who
18 went on his own; what Mr Islam says in his statement --
19 and it is a document that has formed part of the
20 evidence in this case -- he said that the good sergeant
21 gave him, Mr Islam, a lift home.
22 I know that internationally the British police has
23 got a fine reputation of being ladies and gentlemen and
24 so on and all manner of good things have been said about
25 them in the 60 countries I have been to, but I do not
33
1 think it is extended to 2 o'clock in the morning.
2 This man is part of six men who have 275 votes and they
3 are open and people suspect them and so on.
4 The sergeant himself attends and all of a sudden,
5 he says "Where are you living? Let me take you home".
6 That is what Mr Islam said in his statement, and it will
7 be tendered as evidence in this court. That is the
8 deal, there is no other question about it.
9 This court will hear evidence that no such thing
10 took place. In any event, it will be wholly incredible
11 in circumstances such as those that I am describing to
12 this court for the police sergeant to say what amounts
13 to -- or who amounts to be a suspect, "Let us give you
14 a lift home". It would be the equivalent to a case
15 I was doing where I quarreled about the drug officers
16 banging the door down and they went to the house.
17 The judge said to me, "Mr Sukul, did you expect the drug
18 officers at 6 o'clock in the morning to open the
19 letterbox, put their mouths in, and say, 'Coo-ee, it's
20 the drug officers here."
21 That is the kind of person that we say we are
22 dealing with and you can imagine how that really shut me
23 up because what else could I say but Mr Islam wants this
24 court to believe that Sergeant Rattenberry took him home
25 that night.
34
1 Those matters apart, the petitioners have engaged
2 the services of a handwriting expert to examine the
3 handwriting --
4 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Sukul, two things: first of all, are
5 you in fact going to be relying on the allegation that
6 appears in the third paragraph on page 10 of your
7 opening, immediately below paragraph 18, is that part of
8 your case?
9 MR SUKUL: It is. I am extremely grateful.
10 THE COMMISSIONER: Before you come to that, see if you
11 can -- our whetted appetites need to be allayed,
12 I think. Do the police still have the 275 ballot
13 papers?
14 MR SUKUL: They do not.
15 THE COMMISSIONER: What has happened to them?
16 MR SUKUL: What took place is this: later that morning
17 a instruction was given to a Sergeant Nevin (?) to take
18 that plastic bag back to the election office and deliver
19 it to Mr John Owen, who is part and parcel of the
20 Returning Officer (inaudible).
21 Those 275 votes, I understand, would have been mixed
22 in with the general other postal votes and simply gone
23 into the system. Nobody at the time had any control
24 over what should happen.
25 THE COMMISSIONER: So what you are saying is that if these
35
1 275 votes were indeed forged at what I have described as
2 the factory, they went into the system?
3 MR SUKUL: They went into the system, sir. I dare say from
4 what I know of this case, I do not think anyone is going
5 to say they have not.
6 THE COMMISSIONER: So we do not in fact know what the ballot
7 papers showed, but if your evidence is correct it may be
8 reasonable to make an inference?
9 MR SUKUL: Yes. I am grateful.
10 It is important to mention at this stage that
11 Mr Islam has in fact admitted that he forged several
12 voters' signatures.
13 THE COMMISSIONER: Admitted to whom?
14 MR SUKUL: I think I should re-phrase that. It is important
15 to mention at this stage that Mr Islam has admitted he
16 forged several signatures. It is for this court to
17 decide whose signatures they were. That admission in
18 fact has come in black and white with Mr Islam's
19 signature, by way of his witness statement which has
20 been served upon this court.
21 MR HAYES: Sir, I hesitate to interrupt my learned friend
22 but that is really not right. The paragraph that
23 I suspect he might be referring to is paragraph 20,
24 where Mr Islam says:
25 "In all cases I have not forged or otherwise the
36
1 voter's signature."
2 I do not want to start interrupting my learned
3 friend but we should get these things right.
4 THE COMMISSIONER: At least we know what Mr Sukul is relying
5 on is the statement that has been put into these
6 proceedings and in due course we shall see that
7 statement. You have quite rightly put down the marker
8 there, Mr Hayes.
9 MR HAYES: I am obliged.
10 MR SUKUL: I hear what my learned friend says.
11 THE COMMISSIONER: You were going to deal with the
12 handwriting expert.
13 MR SUKUL: The petitioners were able to engage the services
14 of a handwriting expert to examine the writings on
15 several hundred pages of election documents including
16 DOIs and application to vote forms. You remember those
17 are the ones that carry -- in fact both forms carry the
18 voter's signature.
19 THE COMMISSIONER: In the event, Mr Sukul, the handwriting
20 expert ended up jointly instructed by the petitioners,
21 the Labour Party respondents and the Returning Officer.
22 MR SUKUL: Absolutely.
23 THE COMMISSIONER: So that Mr Allen, the handwriting expert,
24 is a jointly instructed expert.
25 MR SUKUL: I am very grateful.
37
1 THE COMMISSIONER: That does not mean of course that his
2 findings necessarily bind the other parties or indeed
3 bind your client but I think it is important to stress
4 that Mr Allen is a jointly instructed expert.
5 MR SUKUL: That is absolutely right. I said the petitioners
6 engaged, that is not true. It was agreed by the parties
7 to this trial that there would be joint instruction to
8 the handwriting expert. What I am seeking to say
9 is that the petitioners for their part produced several
10 hundreds of pages of documents and required the
11 handwriting expert to examine those and to produce an
12 expert as to the authorship of certain handwritings.
13 MR HAYES: Sir, if it assists my learned friend, we actually
14 have a handwriting report which came this morning. As
15 soon as it is photocopied the court will have a copy and
16 so will my learned friend.
17 THE COMMISSIONER: Is this relating to allegations against
18 your clients?
19 MR HAYES: Sir, no. It is relating to allegations of
20 impersonation and forgery by Liberal Democrat candidates
21 and workers.
22 THE COMMISSIONER: I see. You will have to make your
23 application in due course as to that. But I am obliged
24 to you for drawing it to the court's attention.
25 MR SUKUL: This handwriting expert, to whom I have been
38
1 referring, carried out his work and the expert evidence
2 is conclusively probative of extensive and
3 indeterminable pre-election impersonation and forgery.
4 In other words, there has been widespread fraud being
5 practised by the first three respondents because of the
6 way in which many, many signatures were forged on the
7 two forms I have mentioned. It may well be, if the
8 court so required, if this trial so required, that the
9 handwriting expert himself shall come and sit at that
10 table and give live evidence for the benefit of this
11 trial.
12 Further evidence in support of the petitioners shall
13 be in the form of witness statements from eyewitnesses
14 and other witnesses of fact. The forensic handwriting
15 examination revealed the extensive fraud, which, it is
16 plausible to submit, was not limited to the fraud and
17 forgeries that were revealed by the handwriting
18 examination.
19 So in a few words what is being said is this: whilst
20 the petitioners were able to provide hundreds of pages
21 of documents to the handwriting expert for his
22 examination, those hundreds of pages are in fact only
23 really a small portion of the substantially larger
24 portion of documents that were involved in the whole
25 election process.
39
1 The petitioners are submitting this: we have given
2 a handwriting expert a sample and in this sample that
3 we have given to him it has been revealed that fraud and
4 forgery proliferated everywhere. The submission is that
5 this is only a sample. You can imagine if the man had
6 the capability of examining all the election documents,
7 that is what the submission is as far as the petitioners
8 are concerned.
9 The handwriting expert work and reports apart, the
10 petitioners' primary allegations of fraud and election
11 malpractice, corruption and other illegal activities has
12 in fact been corroborated by the results of two
13 scrutinies of ballot papers held under the supervision
14 of the good Commissioner who sits in this honourable
15 court.
16 The scrutiny results are -- not wanting to declare
17 what they are at this stage, what they reveal is
18 this: that there has been extensive support for the
19 Labour Party reflected by examining hundreds of ballot
20 papers. The submission is this: the petitioners allege
21 that the corruption and illegal practice were for the
22 benefit of the Labour Party.
23 The petitioners have taken a sample of the election
24 papers and given it to the handwriting expert. The
25 handwriting man says, "Yes, there have been extensive
40
1 forgeries on these election documents". Well, it could
2 well be that the Liberal Democrats are the ones who are
3 forging. So be it. All the documents that contain the
4 forgeries were then subjected to a visual scrutiny
5 in the presence of the learned Commissioner. The
6 results of that scrutiny, which is scrutinising the
7 documents the handwriting man saw, shows a huge margin
8 in favour of the Labour Party. The petitioners say if
9 those circumstances are true, then that is another
10 irresistible inference that must be drawn that the
11 forgery must be consistent with the allegation that the
12 forgery was committed for the benefit of those who stood
13 for the Labour Party, and those who stood for the
14 Labour Party are Mr Azfal, Mr Islam and Mr Kazi.
15 Let me just tell you this: on the disclosure of some
16 bare figures, bearing in mind the matters I have alluded
17 to a few moments ago, a bare visual inspection of the
18 writings on some 745 DOIs, the petitioners just look at
19 these 745 DOIs. Bearing in mind they are looking at
20 DOIs, they are not looking at ballot papers so they have
21 no idea who these DOIs are for in terms of who or which
22 party the DOI people have voted for. So all they can
23 see is two signatures and a name and address.
24 This is what has actually precipitated the
25 involvement of the handwriting expert. The petitioners
41
1 say: here are 745 DOIs. The petitioners ask the
2 court: can we have a look at the 745 corresponding
3 ballot papers? Guess what happened. When those ballot
4 papers were revealed in the original form before this
5 learned Commissioner, that is where it was seen that
6 the 745 showed this considerable support for the
7 Labour Party.
8 676 out of 745 DOIs corresponded with Labour votes
9 only. In such a situation, perhaps one can say
10 coincidence. Well, that would drive coincidence to the
11 whole borders of impossibility.
12 This court shall hear evidence from the police to
13 the effect that Mr Islam was involved in the offer of
14 bribes to voters in exchange for their ballot papers and
15 DOIs. There is documentation which will be put to this
16 court and, if required, a police officer of some rank
17 will attend to give evidence about it.
18 The police received complaints from voters that
19 Labour Party activists were offering bribes for postal
20 votes in main roads in the Aston area.
21 Those are the matters that I want to open as against
22 the first three respondents and a lot shorter as against
23 the fourth respondent, the Returning Officer.
24 In fact, put very briefly, what took place was this.
25 On 11th June, it is the morning during which
42
1 verification process and the opening of envelopes and so
2 on, perhaps some counting and so on actually took place,
3 but the polls closed at 10 o'clock on the night before
4 and the following day, 11th June, of course the various
5 parties will have had their agents and the various
6 agents at the counting station to make sure that all is
7 well and the count was fair.
8 That morning at about 9 o'clock or thereabouts,
9 Liberal Democrat agents noticed what has been described
10 as a plastic Nickelbys bag -- being a stranger to
11 Birmingham, I do not know what Nickelby means. I do not
12 know what it is, if it is like Tesco or Sainsburys. All
13 I know is there is a plastic shopping bag with a handle
14 which the witnesses saw, and it contained hundreds of
15 ballot papers mixed with envelopes A and Bs, resting
16 near to a table. On top of the -- if I can call it the
17 Nickelby bag, there was a bundle of white ballot papers
18 that had an elastic band around it.
19 The Liberal Democrat agents began to complain to
20 various people who were in a supervisory position at
21 that time. Various matters took place that you will
22 hear evidence about, but the upshot of all of this is
23 this: eventually, bearing in mind the suspicious
24 circumstances that surrounded this Nickelby's bag, the
25 Returning Officer made a decision to include all the
43
1 votes in that bag as part of the official count.
2 That is one of the allegations that the petitioners
3 have brought against the Returning Officer and say that
4 the Returning Officer herself was in breach of election
5 rules.
6 Well, in addition to that allegation, there are
7 several other allegations which are listed here, which
8 the petitioners have made against the Returning Officer.
9 Most of these allegations deal with breaches of what is
10 called the 2001 regulations. Just to read out one or
11 two: the Returning Officer failed to provide a separate
12 ballot box to hold the covering envelopes -- that is
13 envelope B -- and postal ballots contrary to regulation
14 81A, 81B, 81.1A and 81.1B, and there are numbers of
15 breaches which have been alleged as against the
16 Returning Officer.
17 In fairness to the Returning Officer, one has to
18 make the comment about the evidence, which the
19 petitioners say they have as against the Returning
20 Officer. The only evidence which is reasonable and
21 available, as we speak, and I must make this point,
22 the only evidence which is available as we speak,
23 because of continuing investigations, even as we are in
24 court today, is evidence by way of reliable witnesses
25 who saw and who made statements that give some support
44
1 to the matters that I have only just raised.
2 As I said, there is one other matter that concerns
3 some investigations which have been carried out,
4 directly referrable to allegations against the Returning
5 Officer.
6 There was one other point which I have forgotten to
7 make and if you will forgive me, I will take you back to
8 the handwriting expert. I have mentioned to you in this
9 speech that there was no requirement in law for the
10 petitioners to prove the identity of the persons who
11 they say were involved in this extensive corrupt and
12 illegal practice. In addition to what I have said, the
13 handwriting expert has come to the conclusion that
14 whilst he has been able to specifically implicate
15 Mr Islam in forgeries of signatures, he has been able to
16 implicate by way of conclusive evidence other persons,
17 whose identity has been referred to in the past as
18 mystery A, mystery B, mystery C and so on.
19 Sir, those are the matters I wish to put by way of
20 this opening speech.
21 THE COMMISSIONER: If we can elucidate a little bit of the
22 mystery A and mystery B. As I understand it, Mr Sukul,
23 the position is that when going through the papers it
24 was noticed that you could group documents into a series
25 of groups, each group being apparently the same hand.
45
1 MR SUKUL: Sir, yes.
2 THE COMMISSIONER: So mystery A, what that means is that all
3 the documents in the mystery A group appear to have been
4 written by same person but as a number of different
5 names have been used it is impossible to tell who, and
6 there is another group apparently written by the same
7 person but different from the first and should be called
8 mystery B and so on.
9 That was one of the requests that were put to --
10 I have in fact referred to him as Mr Allen. It is not,
11 it is his colleague, Mr Cosslett. That is where we get
12 the mystery A, mystery B from.
13 MR SUKUL: Indeed. That is in fact the provenance of the
14 euphemism, really, mystery A and mystery B. The learned
15 Commissioner is quite right. The petitioners, whatever
16 skills they used when they inspected the DOIs -- because
17 of course the petitioners cannot see the ballot papers,
18 nobody can other than those in the fullest of authority.
19 So all the petitioners had to work with was the DOI
20 forms on which they can see these various handwritings.
21 What the petitioners did was this and how they did
22 it was a matter for them. Wherever they saw a physical
23 similarity in handwriting on a DOI, they put that DOI
24 aside. What happened was that the first set of DOIs
25 they set aside, the primary reason for making that pile
46
1 of DOIs other than the fact that the handwriting
2 appeared to be similar, it was the A that was written
3 in that handwriting that attracted the petitioners and
4 that is what caused the petitioners to start referring
5 to that pile of DOIs as mystery A.
6 The learned Commissioner is right. It is not as if
7 mystery A signed John Ali -- that would have been "A
8 John Ali" -- and he had 162 John Alis all living at 16
9 Acacia Drive. That perhaps would have been acceptable.
10 I might not have been able to argue against that.
11 You will hear the evidence, and I am only going by
12 memory, but I think mystery A adopted something like 62
13 separate identities. I wonder if it is right to say if
14 you add the midnight flit at Wrylie Industrial Estate to
15 mystery A, if that is sufficient for me to suggest
16 respectfully to this court that this election ought to
17 be declared ...
18 THE COMMISSIONER: So your case, Mr Sukul, is this: if in
19 respect of mystery A we can show that a single person
20 wrote a large number of documents in a variety of
21 different names, you would ask me to draw from that the
22 inference that all or most of those documents must
23 necessarily be forgeries.
24 MR SUKUL: I would indeed, sir.
25 THE COMMISSIONER: It does not, of course, get us any nearer
47
1 to who mystery A is, which would require a different
2 process, and I think it is right to say that
3 a considerable number of the documents that have been
4 challenged in this way have in the scrutiny process been
5 married up with the relevant ballot papers.
6 MR SUKUL: Yes.
7 THE COMMISSIONER: And the number of ballot papers which
8 record Labour votes and the number which do not appears
9 in the report of my two scrutiny exercises.
10 MR SUKUL: Indeed, sir. Heavily biased towards Labour
11 support. Those are the matters I wish to put in
12 opening.
13 May I mention my very kind thanks for the guidance
14 and assistance you gave to me, the corrections and so
15 on.
16 I wonder if I might seek your leave to call the
17 first witness.
18 THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, because we have first of all the
19 submissions -- whether Mr Hayes wishes to make any
20 submissions at this stage.
21 MR HAYES: Not at this stage but what does concern me is
22 what my learned friend has said in paragraph 15 and
23 paragraph 24. Firstly, a very serious allegation about
24 Mr Khan, who the respondents will be calling as
25 a witness. My learned friend has said --
48
1 THE COMMISSIONER: That is the agent?
2 MR HAYES: Yes. That the officers left the warehouse:
3 "However, the inspector at the station was not
4 convinced with Mr Khan's story".
5 Then at 24 my learned friend refers to Mr Islam.
6 It is a very serious allegation:
7 "This court shall hear evidence from police to the
8 effect that Mr Islam was involved in the offer of bribes
9 to voters in exchange for the ballot papers and DOIs."
10 Of course --
11 THE COMMISSIONER: That will need to be proved strictly by
12 evidence.
13 MR HAYES: Yes. This morning a minute before you, sir, sat
14 down, and we all properly rose, we were given the
15 evidence, the statements of these police officers.
16 I have not had the opportunity of reading them, I have
17 not had the opportunity of taking instructions. The
18 petitioners are publicly funded, they have had months to
19 prepare their case. Now we hear for the very first time
20 that they have had four hours with police officers
21 yesterday.
22 I would like to see the police officers' notebooks
23 at the time. All this should have been done, in my
24 respectful submission, a long time ago.
25 THE COMMISSIONER: There has been disclosure of
49
1 a considerable amount of police material which certainly
2 your clients would have had -- certainly your clients'
3 solicitors would have had at the time when Steel &
4 Shamash were on the record.
5 MR HAYES: I have seen it.
6 THE COMMISSIONER: I do not know whether you have been able
7 to get the papers from Steel & Shamash.
8 MR HAYES: I have seen that but it is very different from
9 what my learned friend is alleging, and, sir, you may
10 wish to refresh your memory of what Mr Owen says in
11 paragraph 151, because he took -- he was obviously
12 concerned about the warehouse incident. He spoke to the
13 police and he made decisions on what the police told
14 him, which in my respectful submission are highly
15 relevant. But the purpose of me rising at this stage is
16 to ask for a little time. It is a serious allegation
17 and we have had no notice of this at all.
18 THE COMMISSIONER: You are certainly not going to be
19 required to cross-examine anyone before the short
20 adjournment because I have Mr Coppel's statement and
21 possibly a statement from Mr Brook on behalf of
22 the Director. We will see when the time comes --
23 perhaps it would assist if at some stage, at an early
24 stage after I have risen, Mr Sukul were to provide you
25 with a batting order of witnesses so that you would
50
1 know. If that order involves witnesses that you might
2 find difficulties with coming first then I will consider
3 the position as to giving you a chance to read into it.
4 But you have your clients here, do you?
5 MR HAYES: Yes.
6 THE COMMISSIONER: And you have a solicitor here?
7 MR HAYES: Sir, yes. It should not take too long.
8 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, you will certainly have the short
9 adjournment and you may, if appropriate circumstances,
10 have longer.
11 MR HAYES: I am greatly obliged.
12 THE COMMISSIONER: I take it you have a very similar view on
13 that?
14 MS BARKER: I do. In particular, paragraph 16 of the
15 opening, it refers to some associated technical data
16 in relation to Mr Azfal being allegedly present at the
17 warehouse and that has not yet been seen.
18 THE COMMISSIONER: You have seen, presumably, the phone
19 records?
20 MS BARKER: No.
21 THE COMMISSIONER: You should have seen the phone records
22 because that is a document that has certainly been put
23 in evidence and certainly they ought to be shown the
24 phone records as soon as possible.
25 If you have any technical evidence, again, they must
51
1 be shown that as soon as possible. I have seen the
2 phone record, but I have not seen any technical
3 evidence.
4 MR SUKUL: The technical evidence is not available at this
5 stage. It is going to be subject to an application
6 I will be making perhaps when you return at 2 o'clock.
7 THE COMMISSIONER: That is entirely a matter for you,
8 Mr Sukul. Bearing in mind that your evidence is not
9 going to be concluded this afternoon or anything like or
10 even likely this week, I think we can balance two
11 things. One, giving the respondents a sufficient
12 opportunity to put their house in order, not that I am
13 suggesting it is any fault of theirs that it is not in
14 order.
15 Two, avoiding having valuable policemen sitting in
16 court when they could be out doing more useful work on
17 the streets of the West Midlands. That is clearly
18 desirable if it can be done, but I think there may be
19 a risk that one or other of the police officers at least
20 may find him or herself coming back on another day.
21 That being said, clearly my wish would be to get
22 them out of court as soon as possible because they can
23 be more usefully employed elsewhere.
24 Make sure that you tell Mr Hayes and Ms Barker.
25 Mr Coppel? I have had your written opening.
52
1 MR COPPEL: I am grateful, sir.
2 This election trial, like the one in
3 Bordesley Green, again divides itself into two distinct
4 parts. The first part comprises a series of allegations
5 made by the petitioners against the Labour Party
6 respondents. The allegations are of various corrupt or
7 illegal electoral practices by the Labour Party
8 respondents or by their agents.
9 The petitioners do not allege that the Returning
10 Officer played any role in these alleged corrupt or
11 illegal practices, nor is it said that the Returning
12 Officer facilitated these alleged corrupt or illegal
13 practices.
14 Those allegations, if made out, are potentially
15 enough to void the 10th June 2004 elections in the Aston
16 ward. The second part of this case is quite separate
17 from the first. In the second part, the petitioners
18 allege that the Returning Officer failed to run the
19 10th June 2004 election in substantial accordance with
20 election law.
21 The petitioners say that as a result of this, the
22 election itself was affected. It is this part, and
23 it is only this part, which is levelled against the
24 Returning Officer.
25 The Returning Officer's response to this part is as
53
1 clear as it is simple. She did conduct the election in
2 accordance with the election rules. There was only one
3 variation from the strict letter of the rules, that
4 variation related to the process used to match the
5 number on the reverse of a ballot with the number on
6 a declaration of identity.
7 That variation did not result in any ballot being
8 counted that would otherwise not have been counted. It
9 did not result in any ballot not being counted that
10 otherwise would have been counted. It made no
11 difference whatsoever to the number of votes secured by
12 each of the candidates.
13 Accordingly, under the Representation of the People
14 Act 1983, it provides no proper basis for avoiding the
15 election.
16 It is, I will suggest, most unfortunate that the
17 respondents have seized upon a procedural immateriality
18 to bring the Returning Officer into a trial of this
19 sort. It was unnecessary. Properly advised, it should
20 never have happened. Properly advised, it should never
21 have been maintained.
22 THE COMMISSIONER: Pausing there, it is correct to say
23 though, is it not, that the Returning Officer is
24 necessarily a party to election petitions?
25 MR COPPEL: That is correct.
54
1 THE COMMISSIONER: Even if no allegation is made against him
2 or her.
3 MR COPPEL: That is correct, although the making of
4 allegation materially impinges on the amount of work the
5 Returning Officer has to do.
6 THE COMMISSIONER: And it changes you in effect from being
7 a neutral party to an adversarial party.
8 MR COPPEL: I would have enjoyed more of a break like my
9 learned friend, Mr Brook, than the one I have presently
10 enjoyed.
11 THE COMMISSIONER: Your shoulders are broad enough,
12 Mr Coppel.
13 MR COPPEL: I accept that, sir. I do not complain.
14 That is the position. It changes the complexion of
15 the case that is levelled against the Returning Officer
16 from being a neutral party to in effect being
17 a defendant to these proceedings.
18 The petitioners' case against the Returning Officer
19 has always been confined to her conduct of the
20 10th June 2004 elections. However, the petitioners have
21 from time to time changed the particular aspects of her
22 conduct about which they have complained, making up new
23 ones and dropping old ones as they go along.
24 I would not normally concern myself with allegations
25 that have been abandoned. However, this is a public
55
1 trial. The allegations that have been made are a matter
2 of public record. The allegations concern the way in
3 which a public official has carried out her public
4 duties. It is only right that those that have been
5 abandoned or have been acknowledged as not involving
6 the Returning Officer be publicly identified.
7 I underline this last point because if the
8 petitioners are to abandon allegations against the
9 Returning Officer, the public interest demands that this
10 be done openly, that it be done publicly, and that it be
11 done unreservedly. It must be done in a way which
12 leaves no residual doubt, it must be done in a way that
13 fully restores public confidence in the Returning
14 Officer and her staff, and I stress the point because
15 Mr Sukul today has provided this court with an opening
16 that is very different from that which he filed with the
17 court just a week ago.
18 In November 2004, you sir, ordered the petitioners
19 to file and serve a written opening by Thursday
20 17th February. The petitioners did so on 24th February,
21 just a week ago, and that is over eight months after
22 this case began.
23 THE COMMISSIONER: It is fair to say I did give them an
24 extension of time.
25 MR COPPEL: I do not complain about the 17th to the 24th.
56
1 What I do complain about this is: in that written
2 opening the petitioners continued to make very serious
3 allegations against the Returning Officer. Today,
4 Mr Sukul in his written opening, has said nothing about
5 the Returning Officer. I have this morning been given
6 a new version of Mr Sukul's written opening: not one of
7 the allegations against the Returning Officer that fill
8 the petition in their earlier written opening is there
9 any more, they have disappeared, have vanished.
10 It is a dramatic development, but it is one without
11 explanation from my learned friend. In his oral opening
12 to this court, Mr Mr Sukul reverted in part to his
13 written opening of a week ago and I shall on that basis
14 proceed as if it is that case which continues to be
15 levelled at the Returning Officer.
16 The petitioners have now had three bites at the
17 cherry. They had their first bite with the petition
18 in June of last year and over the space of 11 pages that
19 set out a series of allegations against the Returning
20 Officer. Secondly, in November last year, after days of
21 scrutinising ballot papers, you sir ordered the
22 petitioners to prepare a schedule of allegations.
23 The order of the court said that the schedule of
24 allegations had to set out compendiously, precisely and
25 with as full particularity as possible the allegations
57
1 that continued to be made in the petition against the
2 Returning Officer.
3 The petitioners served that allegation a month ago.
4 There were 13 separate allegations against the Returning
5 Officer in that schedule. Finally, just a week ago,
6 over eight months after first levelling their
7 allegations against the Returning Officer, the
8 petitioners have had another go at it with their formal
9 written opening.
10 I counted in that written opening eight allegations
11 now being made against the Returning Officer. Over the
12 course of these three (inaudible), the petitioners have
13 made and then later abandoned no less than eight
14 separate allegations against the Returning Officer.
15 It goes without saying that each and every time such
16 an allegation has been made the Returning Officer has
17 had to investigate them, to assemble her evidence and to
18 prepare her response. It is time-consuming. When the
19 allegation is dropped, as they have been on eight
20 separate occasions, it is wasteful. It is wasteful of
21 rate payers' money.
22 These then are the abandoned allegations: 1, the
23 petitioners had alleged in their petition that the
24 Returning Officer had included in the count postal
25 ballots that had been received after the close of poll.
58
1 That allegation has gone.
2 2, the petitioners had alleged in their petition
3 that the Returning Officer failed to keep a record of
4 postal voters who had tried to vote in person at polling
5 stations. This, it was originally said, represented
6 laxness on the part of the Returning Officer. Later,
7 the petitioners acknowledged that this did not represent
8 a breach of election law. That allegation too has been
9 abandoned.
10 3, the petitioners had alleged in their petition
11 that the presiding officer at the William Cowper School
12 polling station had wrongly completed ballot papers for
13 voters. On 17th December last year, when asked to
14 particularise their case, they repeated the allegation.
15 But we hear no more of it now, it has been abandoned.
16 4, in the schedule of allegations the petitioners
17 gave as one of their allegations against the Returning
18 Officer that she had "unlawfully failed to provide
19 a sealed receptacle for rejected votes, contrary to
20 regulation 81". We have heard nothing of that in the
21 petitioners' opening this morning. We treat it as
22 having been abandoned like the others by the
23 petitioners.
24 5, a similar but separate allegation was made that
25 the Returning Officer unlawfully failed to provide
59
1 a sealed receptacle for declarations of identity.
2 Again, we hear nothing of that allegation any more, it
3 has been abandoned.
4 6, there are another two receptacle allegations
5 levelled against the Returning Officer, concerning
6 postal ballot paper envelopes. We heard nothing of
7 these allegation this morning and they too have been
8 placed into a receptacle.
9 7, the petitioners made a very serious allegation
10 that the Returning Officer unlawfully matched ballot
11 papers to inconsistent declarations of identity. Not
12 the sort of allegation, one might have thought, to be
13 made without care. But it has now gone, it has been
14 abandoned without explanation.
15 8, the petitioners alleged that the Returning
16 Officer had unlawfully admitted postal ballots in
17 unsealed covering envelopes. That is envelope B. That
18 allegation has gone.
19 Now the complaint made is that they were contained
20 in unsealed envelope As only. But it would be wrong to
21 suggest that the petitioners have spent the last nine
22 months just abandoning their allegations against the
23 Returning Officer. As this petition has been going
24 along they have been making up new ones as well. Some
25 have come and gone and some have stayed.
60
1 There are two that have stayed and they are
2 these: first, the petitioners complained that the
3 Returning Officer unlawfully failed to provide
4 a separate ballot box to contain the B envelopes that
5 arrived at the election office on polling day. We
6 do not find this allegation anywhere within the 11 pages
7 of allegation in the petition. The petitioners need the
8 leave of this court to add this allegation to their
9 petition. They have not sought it and so far as the
10 Returning Officer is concerned, they have not got it.
11 Secondly, the petitioners complained today that the
12 Returning Officer matched up the numbers on ballot
13 papers with those of declarations of identity without
14 maintaining a list, and as a result they say there was
15 no audit trail.
16 This is not in the compendious schedule of
17 allegations. It is a new one.
18 Two further observations may be made about this
19 toing and froing of allegation against the Returning
20 Officer. First, it betrays a certain willingness on the
21 part of the petitioners to make allegations against the
22 Returning Officer without necessarily having the
23 material to see them through. It is of course easy to
24 throw allegations of misconduct against a public
25 officer. It is more difficult to make good those
61
1 allegations.
2 Secondly, what does remain of the allegations
3 against the Returning Officer are allegations of
4 a purely technical nature. On their face, not one of
5 the remaining allegations against the Returning Officer
6 mentioned this morning could have affected the ballots
7 to be counted. The Returning Officer does have the
8 evidence to refute these allegations, but even if she
9 did not, even if somehow the petitioners were able to
10 make good the allegations, these are not matters that
11 would have affected the outcome of the election.
12 In short, they are allegations that are
13 misconceived, they do not satisfy the requirement of
14 section 48 of the Representation of the People Act 1983,
15 they do not get anywhere near it.
16 I turn then to the remnants of the case against the
17 Returning Officer, and there are eight remnants.
18 THE COMMISSIONER: Given that you have a list of eight,
19 would it be sensible to deal with them at 2 o'clock?
20 MR COPPEL: Certainly, sir.
21 THE COMMISSIONER: I am following it in your opening and
22 there is obviously a fair amount of material still to
23 come.
24 Mr Brook, can you indicate whether you will be
25 making a short statement?
62
1 MR BROOK: It may infuriate my learned friend, Mr Coppel,
2 even more. What I propose to do with the court's leave
3 and my learned friend's consent is not to make an oral
4 opening because of course it would be the same as I made
5 in the Bordesley Green petition and a large number of
6 people involved in that petition are here. With the
7 court's leave I have some brief typed notes. It is not
8 a formal opening. I can have them photocopied and
9 placed on the tables in the court so if there is anyone
10 in the public gallery who was not here in
11 Bordesley Green they can read them over the short
12 adjournment.
13 THE COMMISSIONER: Subject to any adverse comments I have
14 from anybody after the adjournment, that is the course
15 we shall pursue. You are happy with that, Mr Hayes?
16 Ms Barker, you are happy with that?
17 MS BARKER: Yes.
18 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Sukul?
19 MR SUKUL: Yes.
20 MR HAYES: Sir, a very brief matter before the short
21 adjournment which may save time. No discourtesy to my
22 learned friend, but during my learned friend's speech
23 I read through the police officer's statement of truth.
24 No-one mentions those matters that were specifically
25 raised in my learned friend's opening about evidence of
63
1 bribery, evidence of disbelief. Are we going to be
2 served with --
3 THE COMMISSIONER: The answer to that is: I think it would
4 be wise if Mr Sukul were to indicate to you and, if
5 necessary, after the short adjournment to me, whether
6 there will be any further police evidence beyond that
7 which has been served on the parties.
8 I do not want you to do that now, Mr Sukul, but
9 I think that had better be made clear to everybody at
10 2 o'clock so that we all know where we stand, including
11 the officers concerned.
12 (1.00 pm)
13 (The Short Adjournment)
14 (2.00 pm)
15 MR COPPEL: Sir, before the adjournment I started on the
16 remnants of the petitioners' case against the Returning
17 Officer. I said there were eight pieces left.
18 First, it is said:
19 "The Returning Officer wrongly if not unfairly
20 informed Labour Party personnel of the dates that
21 batches of postal votes for a particular ward were
22 despatched to the post office such that untimely
23 canvassing was facilitated by Labour personnel in
24 preference to personnel associated with the other
25 competing parties."
64
1 On 20th January this year, sir, in a decision on our
2 application to strike this allegation out, you said
3 this, paragraph 40:
4 "I am not prepared to strike it out now but I would
5 certainly urge the petitioners to consider whether they
6 wish to persist in this allegation and to notify the
7 Returning Officer before the trial if it is going to be
8 abandoned."
9 And by order sealed on 25th January this year, you
10 ordered that:
11 "The petitioners do notify the Returning Officer's
12 solicitors in writing whether it is their case that the
13 conduct of the Returning Officer, of which they complain
14 in paragraph 12.1.2 of the petition, was contrary to any
15 statutory provision, and if so, which provision."
16 The petitioners have not so advised the Returning
17 Officer. The Returning Officer through her solicitors
18 has chased for a response and this has provoked no
19 response.
20 We can only assume that the petitioners do wish to
21 persist, notwithstanding non-compliance with your order,
22 sir.
23 Mr Owen and Ms Mulvihill will speak to the
24 allegation, the allegation is simply not borne out by
25 the evidence. The evidence will say that because of the
65
1 sheer volume of postal votes, political parties could
2 not always be informed as frequently as they would have
3 liked as to the dispatch of postal votes.
4 But they were all treated equally. In any event,
5 this allegation provides no basis for avoiding an
6 election under the 1983 Act. Second remnant, it is
7 complained that:
8 "The Returning Officer unlawfully ordered that an
9 authorised Liberal Democrat Party polling agent, one
10 Mrs Muir, be excluded temporarily from a polling station
11 on 10th June 2004."
12 We know that this polling station was the Broadway
13 Lower School polling station. We will hear from
14 Mrs Bent, Ms Jones and Mr Calsy about this. The short
15 answer is that Mrs Muir at first did not bring with her
16 the letter of appointment which every polling agent must
17 bring in order to be admitted as such. She should have
18 known this. In any event, she was told on 10th June to
19 go and get her letter of appointment and she would be
20 admitted. She did not accept this advice and argued
21 about it for about a quarter of an hour.
22 Later they came with a photocopy of the letter of
23 appointment and she was allowed in. Again, it is an
24 allegation that cannot provide any basis for avoiding an
25 election.
66
1 Third remnant. It is complained that:
2 THE COMMISSIONER: If I interrupt you there, Mr Coppel.
3 Obviously we will deal with the evidence if and when
4 it is adduced, but I will, I think, require to have some
5 explanation from somebody at some stage if evidence is
6 to be adduced as to the way in which it could be alleged
7 that the exclusion of a polling agent from a polling
8 station could found a petition.
9 It seems to me that although it might in certain
10 circumstances amount to a breach of the obligations of
11 the Returning Officer, whether it does here or not may
12 be an academic question, but I would require clearly to
13 be convinced that that had the slightest effect on the
14 result of an election. I do not ask for a response now.
15 That should be borne in mind because I do not wish to
16 spend hours litigating whether Mrs Muir was or was not
17 admitted to a polling station if nothing turns on it.
18 MR COPPEL: Our point exactly. It is a matter for the
19 petitioners. If they are saying somehow, quite how we
20 do not know, it is somehow said to affect the result of
21 election, we cannot see it. That is what our evidence
22 will be.
23 The third remnant. It is complained that:
24 "The Returning Officer unlawfully failed to provide
25 a separate ballot box to contain the envelope Bs that
67
1 arrived at the elections office on polling day."
2 It is not said by the petitioners that this resulted
3 in any ballot being counted that ought not to have been
4 counted. Nor is it said by the petitioners that this
5 resulted in any ballot not being counted that ought to
6 have been counted.
7 This is an allegation that was not in the petition,
8 but in any event, even if it were in the petition, it
9 provides no basis for the avoiding of an election rather
10 like the second remnant.
11 Fourth remnant of the petitioners' case against the
12 Returning Officer is that they complain:
13 "The Returning Officer matched up ballot papers and
14 declarations of identity without maintaining a list set
15 out in regulations 87 and 88 of the Representation of
16 the People England and Wales Regulations 2001, thus no
17 audit trail was available."
18 Again, it is important to keep in mind what is not
19 alleged in this complaint. The petitioners do not say
20 that because the Returning Officer did not adhere to the
21 matching methods set out in the regulations that she
22 matched up some declarations of identity and ballots
23 that should not have been matched.
24 The petitioners do not say that the outcome of the
25 matching process adopted is any different from what it
68
1 would have been if the regulation 85 to 87 method had
2 been adhered to.
3 So we say at the very least it made no difference.
4 It could have made no difference to the outcome of this
5 election. But in any event, Mr Owen, the principal
6 elections officer in Birmingham City Council, will speak
7 to this allegation. He will explain exactly how his
8 officers went about matching numbers on declarations of
9 identity and ballot papers. He will explain that they
10 did start compiling a list so as to match the numbers,
11 but that it became very quickly apparent that this added
12 nothing to the process other than time.
13 Very often, what appeared to have occurred is that
14 two electors in a single household had put their
15 declarations of identity with another's ballot paper.
16 So for example, that Mr A's envelope containing Mr A's
17 ballot paper had in it Mrs A's declaration of
18 identity.And then Mrs A's envelope that contained her
19 ballot paper contained Mr A's declaration of identity.
20 In other words, they had just put their declarations
21 of identity in the wrong envelope.
22 The listing process was designed to make sure that
23 mismatched votes such as these got counted. And that is
24 just what Mr Owen's staff did, but they did not need
25 a list in order to be able to do it.
69
1 Mr Owen will give evidence that it is common
2 practice amongst elections officers up and down the
3 country to use the same method that he did. His
4 evidence shows that to have drawn up lists in order to
5 match would, in the best of circumstances, have taken up
6 many more hours and these were not the best of
7 circumstances.
8 He will give evidence as to the threefold increase
9 in postal ballots in the 10th June 2004 election, and
10 that in itself presented its own logistical
11 difficulties.
12 So far as the audit trail aspect of this allegation
13 is concerned, there is no statutory requirement for the
14 Returning Officer to keep the matching lists. The
15 matching lists are not intended to provide an audit
16 trail, they are only intended to facilitate the matching
17 process.
18 So, for this reason, the fourth complaint is yet
19 another complaint that cannot engage the statutory
20 requirements of the Representation of the People Act
21 1983.
22 THE COMMISSIONER: Pausing there, Mr Coppel, this is an
23 allegation that is common to both petitions, is it not?
24 MR COPPEL: Correct.
25 THE COMMISSIONER: And depending on which way the
70
1 regulations are interpreted, Mr Owen may on one view or
2 may not on another view have cut a corner, but your case
3 in both petitions is: so what? Even if he was obliged
4 to keep the lists, they were to be kept for a purpose,
5 namely the matching of initially unmatched declarations
6 and ballot papers, and if this was achieved by other
7 means then no harm has come. That is essentially your
8 case as it was in the Bordesley Green case?
9 MR COPPEL: Correct, insofar as the audit trail is
10 concerned, which appears to be the way in which it is
11 presented both in this case and in Bordesley Green. We
12 say that is not the purpose of the lists. Moreover,
13 when one looks at the legislation, the obligation to
14 keep certain documents relating to an election is
15 limited to very specific documents and then it is
16 limited in time.
17 THE COMMISSIONER: I think it follows, I do not invite
18 argument from any of the other parties at this point,
19 but I think it follows from that that although Mr Owen's
20 obligation to keep these lists to comply with the
21 regulations is a very nice legal point which I am sure
22 the world would like to see resolved, resolving it will
23 not in any way matter one way or the other.
24 MR COPPEL: No.
25 THE COMMISSIONER: Even if the argument is correct: he
71
1 should have done it. The fact that he did not you would
2 say makes not the slightest difference.
3 MR COPPEL: Correct, we say it makes no difference
4 whatsoever.
5 THE COMMISSIONER: So at some stage I have to consider
6 whether or to what extent it is fruitful for me to add
7 the construction of regulations 87 and 88 from the 2001
8 regulations to my other burdens.
9 MR COPPEL: Sir, the view may be taken that you have enough
10 on your plate.
11 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, well there we are. I do not invite
12 a response now, but so far as Mr Sukul and his team are
13 concerned, I would simply say: think on.
14 MR COPPEL: Fifth remnant. It is complained that the
15 Returning Officer:
16 "Failed to conduct any enquiry or any reasonable
17 enquiry as to the provenance of a plastic shopping bag
18 referred to later as "the Nickelby bag" that contained
19 a quantity of unsealed covering envelopes and
20 a substantial amount of unsealed envelope As that
21 contained ballot papers."
22 We will in this trial hear a lot about this plastic
23 shopping bag, and from the Returning Officer's side
24 Lynne Taylor, Sheila Hurst, Cheryl Mulvihill, Mirza
25 Ahmad, Ken Moore and three others will all give evidence
72
1 about it.
2 The short of it is that a plastic carrier bag was
3 used to convey securely and by car postal ballots from
4 the elections office in Great Charles Street to the
5 National Indoor Arena where the count was taking place.
6 These were all postal ballots in envelopes addressed
7 to the Returning Officer, and that had been brought by
8 hand to the elections office shortly before the close of
9 poll at 10 pm on 10th June 2004.
10 There is nothing sinister in that. Under election
11 law, having been delivered to the Returning Officer
12 before the close of poll, they must be treated as
13 validly received and so they were.
14 Sixthly, it is complained that the Returning
15 Officer --
16 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Coppel, I would take the Nickelby's
17 bag to be the only issue of any substance as opened
18 between you and the petitioners. Clearly, your case
19 is that these are postal ballots validly received by the
20 elections office prior to the close of poll and that
21 although the means of transport to the NIA may have been
22 informal, it was nonetheless regular.
23 The problem is, and why we have to resolve this
24 issue, it is clearly a mirror image of the famous three
25 boxes in Bordesley Green, the suspicion being raised at
73
1 the time that these were votes which had not come
2 through the normal process and had in some way been
3 slipped into the poll. That is, as it were, the
4 allegation that you have to address in respect of the
5 Nickelby's bag.
6 MR COPPEL: Yes. The petitioners in their schedule of
7 allegations and indeed in their written opening, the one
8 that came before this morning, separate the allegations
9 so far as the Nickelby bag in fact into two. There is
10 the allegation I have just mentioned and then there is
11 another one, which I have numbered separately, which in
12 fact relates to that very point, namely that what was
13 in the plastic bag ought not to have been counted.
14 They have presented them as distinct allegations.
15 THE COMMISSIONER: I think your sixth point is a point that
16 is not a point so much by itself, it is part of the
17 evidence on which the petitioners rely to show this bag
18 was or ought to have been treated by Mr Owen and his
19 team as being suspicious and dealt with in a different
20 manner.
21 MR COPPEL: Well, yes, save that the way in which it is put
22 in the schedule of allegations is as a freestanding
23 complaint against the Returning Officer. The way it is
24 put is number 10:
25 "The Returning Officer unlawfully failed to conduct
74
1 any enquiry as to the provenance of a bundle of unmarked
2 white European ballots, wrapped in an elastic band and
3 located at the top of the said plastic shopping bag."
4 That cannot get these petitioners anywhere in
5 a Local Government election petition.
6 THE COMMISSIONER: No. As an allegation that must be right.
7 But I think the way in which it is put, though it might
8 be more elegantly put, nonetheless the way in which it
9 is put is here are these white European ballots in this
10 bag. It is fishy, they should not be there. It
11 requires an explanation, and until there is an
12 explanation we are entitled to assume that there is
13 something extremely doubtful about this bag and about
14 its contents and it should have been treated
15 appropriately. That is how I read the case that is
16 being made against you.
17 I quite accept that as a freestanding allegation it
18 gets nowhere because we are not concerned with the
19 European ballot.
20 MR COPPEL: And in a sense it all leads into what I have
21 identified as the seventh allegation, which continues
22 what I call the plastic bag theme because there it is
23 complained that the Returning Officer:
24 "Failed to conduct any enquiry or any reasonable
25 enquiry to establish the identity of the person or
75
1 persons who were responsible for the conveyance of the
2 said plastic shopping bag and contents to the count at
3 the material time."
4 And then related to that is the eighth complaint,
5 namely that the Returning Officer unlawfully admitted
6 the ballots contained in the said plastic Nickelby bag,
7 which were contained within sealed or unsealed A
8 envelopes.
9 There, sir, we agree that really what is being said
10 is a single composite complaint that here were a bag of
11 ballot papers inside sealed or unsealed envelopes, which
12 were brought to the National Indoor Arena in what they
13 term suspicious circumstances, and as a facet of those
14 suspicious circumstances they refer to the European
15 Parliamentary Election papers on to top of it and what
16 have you.
17 So far as this is concerned, the Returning Officer's
18 evidence will resolve this puzzle for the petitioners.
19 We say the evidence is quite clear. We can show what
20 the provenance of this bag is, we can show its movements
21 between the elections office at Great Charles Street and
22 the National Indoor Arena and we can show that its
23 contents were such that the Returning Officer had no
24 basis for not opening these ballots and treating them as
25 other validly delivered postal ballot papers.
76
1 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. A part of the allegations you have
2 to meet, although it is not articulated by Mr Sukul but
3 it is quite clearly in the witness statements, is that
4 the process whereby the Returning Officer and Mr Owen
5 took the decision to admit the bag were themselves such
6 as to give rise, it is said, to a feeling on the part of
7 those who were objecting to it that they were not
8 getting a fair crack at the whip.
9 That I am sure is addressed in your evidence and
10 will be addressed, but it needs to be brought out into
11 the open so that the allegation you have to face is that
12 a slightly hole in corner decision was made whereas your
13 case, I know, is to the contrary.
14 MR COPPEL: And we will produce all of the evidence, as we
15 say, that relates to the Nickelby bag so far as it is
16 within the knowledge of the Returning Officer and her
17 staff, and we will show how it moved from Great Charles
18 Street to the National Indoor Arena, and the underlying
19 thinking between accepting those votes for opening, like
20 any other validly delivered postal ballots.
21 THE COMMISSIONER: Have you disclosed to Mr Sukul what
22 Nickelby's is?
23 MR COPPEL: I can offer a site view, if you like. One
24 passes it every day when one goes to Birmingham New
25 Street Station but I have not asked for a bag.
77
1 Those are the eight remaining aspects of a case
2 against the Returning Officer and I have from time to
3 time during my opening said that even if made out by the
4 evidence the complaints levelled at the Returning
5 Officer cannot result in the avoiding of the election.
6 This is critical to an understanding of the case against
7 the Returning Officer.
8 The case against the Returning Officer is rooted in
9 section 48.1 of the Representation of the People Act
10 1983. So far as these proceedings target the Returning
11 Officer, that section is of fundamental importance.
12 This is what it says:
13 "No Local Government election shall be declared
14 invalid by reason of any act or omission of the
15 Returning Officer or any other person in breach of his
16 official duty in connection with the election or
17 otherwise of rules under section 36 or section 42 above.
18 If it appears to the tribunal having cognisance of the
19 question that (a) the election was so conducted as to be
20 substantially in accordance with the law as to
21 elections, and (b), that the act or omission did not
22 affect its result."
23 The policy sense of the provision is self-evident,
24 it looks to breaches of substance. An election is not
25 to be declared invalid if the Returning Officer's
78
1 claimed shortcomings neither constituted a substantial
2 departure from the rules nor affected the result of the
3 election.
4 There, says the Returning Officer, is the short
5 answer to the petitioners' complaint against him because
6 on no normal view can it be said that the way in which
7 the Returning Officer went about matching the numbers on
8 the declarations of identity with those on the ballot
9 papers resulted in the election not being conducted
10 substantially in accordance with the law as to
11 elections.
12 On no normal view can it be said that the Returning
13 Officer's matching process affected the result of the
14 election. The petitioners do not even get to first
15 case. It is not even part of their case that the
16 different way in which the numbers on the documents were
17 matched had any effect on what was and was not matched
18 and the other complaints all suffered from the same
19 fatal shortcoming.
20 Summarising, then, the evidence which will be called
21 by the Returning Officer, you will hear from 14
22 witnesses for and on behalf of the Returning Officer.
23 THE COMMISSIONER: Maximum?
24 MR COPPEL: Maximum.
25 THE COMMISSIONER: Hopefully many fewer.
79
1 MR COPPEL: You will hear from the Returning Officer
2 herself, Lin Homer, and as is to be expected, she
3 delegated a greater part of her functions to the
4 election officer, Mr John Owen. Mr John Owen will
5 provide the most substantial part of the Returning
6 Officer's evidence. He will explain in detail the
7 recent history of postal voting in this country, the
8 instructions, training and guidance given to staff in
9 the elections office, the background to the 10th June
10 elections, the procedure for postal voting, including
11 receipt and counting, the matching process, events on
12 polling day, events on the day of the count, and to the
13 extent possible he will make some observations on the
14 experts' reports.
15 You will also hear from various officials who
16 carried out duties in relation to the 10th June
17 election, and the team leader responsible for issuing
18 postal votes, the pre-count supervisor at the 8th June
19 opening. The presiding officer at the William Cowper
20 School, the polling clerk at the Broadway School, the
21 polling station control officer, the polling agents
22 control officer, Deputy Returning Officer, senior Deputy
23 Returning Officers, and various other election office
24 staff and council employees who speak to particular
25 matters which are raised in the petition against the
80
1 Returning Officer.
2 Sir, I conclude with this: it is important to bear
3 in mind that the Returning Officer must not wrongly
4 disenfranchise people. It is not her role to look
5 behind ballots that are valid in form and that have been
6 properly returned. She is under no duty to do so, she
7 has no power to do so, and she does not have the means
8 to do so.
9 It would be undermining her role were she to attempt
10 to do so.
11 That is important to remember in the trial of this
12 petition because there have at times been hints in this
13 petition that the Returning Officer had the means to
14 prevent the alleged corrupt and illegal practices being
15 effected.
16 Such hints tend to suggest a connection between the
17 two parts of this petition. They are misplaced
18 suggestions. The Returning Officer properly and
19 diligently carried out all her functions. None of the
20 matters that have been alighted upon by the petitioners
21 affect the result of the election, none of the matters
22 alighted upon by the petitioners can fairly be said to
23 have resulted in the election not having been conducted
24 substantially in accordance with the law relating to
25 elections.
81
1 THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Coppel.
2 Mr Brook, you have placed your notes available for
3 the public?
4 MR BROOK: I have, yes.
5 THE COMMISSIONER: Fine. Very well, Mr Sukul. Your first
6 witness please.
7 MR SUKUL: Sir, I might ask you to look at volume 2 of those
8 volumes to your left, at page 598.
9 If I may call WPC Bradley please.
10 MR HAYES: Just before my learned friend calls his witness,
11 may I make a suggestion which I hope is helpful.
12 I understand from my learned friend that he is intending
13 to call and serve the statement of truth of two other
14 police witnesses but that will not be until the
15 adjournment this afternoon.
16 I would like to see that evidence all at once if I
17 could. I would be grateful if I could look at all the
18 evidence together and begin my cross-examination of
19 these officers tomorrow.
20 THE COMMISSIONER: What do we know about the two witnesses
21 who have yet to be served on you?
22 MR HAYES: Not a lot. It is Police Constable Rattenberry.
23 It may be an inspector. I do not know.
24 THE COMMISSIONER: Constable or sergeant?
25 MR HAYES: Sergeant.
82
1 THE COMMISSIONER: Do they impinge on the evidence of WPC
2 Bradley?
3 MR SUKUL: Sir, I think not. There might be some repetition
4 or some corroboration but the petitioners are not
5 seeking to rely on that aspect.
6 THE COMMISSIONER: I think how we will play it, if you
7 do not mind, Mr Hayes, is if you cross-examine these
8 officers as they give their evidence. If as a result of
9 further material from Mr Sukul you feel you have not as
10 it were had a fair crack at the whip then I will
11 obviously look very indulgently on any application for
12 them to be recalled for you to put further matters to
13 them. If you do not then they can go about their normal
14 business.
15 MR HAYES: I am greatly obliged, sir. The importance of
16 Police Sergeant Rattenberry is that he is the man who
17 makes the report to the Chief Superintendent, who makes
18 the report to Mr Owen, which is of great significance of
19 who said what to whom.
20 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. But I take the other officers who
21 are here to be mainly factual witnesses as to what they
22 saw and did not see on this particular night in June
23 last year.
24 MR HAYES: So be it.
25 MR BROOK: Sir, can I just mention, and I notice the other
83
1 officers are present in court, as of course is usual in
2 a Civil Court, that this evidence is going to be
3 contentious, whether it would be better for the other
4 officers to wait outside.
5 THE COMMISSIONER: Is this a view that is held by anyone
6 else present? It only needs one to say so.
7 MR COPPEL: I think they probably should be outside.
8 MR HAYES: I agree.
9 THE COMMISSIONER: The three officers present, sorry to put
10 you to the inconvenience but you may well find a cafe on
11 the ground floor.
12 WPC BRADLEY (sworn)
13 Examination-in-chief by MR SUKUL
14 A. WPC Bradley, 77010.
15 MR SUKUL: WPC Bradley, you have a bundle of papers in front
16 of you and I think the page you need is page 598,
17 is that right?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. If you look at the pages that follow you will see 599
20 and 600. There is a signature there at 600, is that
21 your signature?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Is that statement your statement?
24 A. It is, yes.
25 Q. WPC Bradley, I will read the statement. And then my
84
1 friends may have some questions for you:
2 "Witness statement of WPC Bradley, 7010:
3 "I WPC 7010 Bradley am a police constable employed
4 by the West Midlands Police and make this statement and
5 say as follows. This witness statement contains
6 information which is within my own knowledge, save where
7 it is stated otherwise, in which case it is true to the
8 best of my information and belief.
9 "I was on duty with my colleague WPC Grundy on
10 9th June 2004 and at approximately 34 hours after
11 midnight ".
12 THE COMMISSIONER: Minutes after midnight.
13 MR SUKUL: "We attended a warehouse known as NT situated on
14 the Wrylie Industrial Estate off Birch Road East
15 following a call in connection to allegations of
16 fraudulent malpractices. Upon arrival we had just
17 parked up outside the NT warehouse when we saw an
18 individual who was coming out of the warehouse.
19 "We asked the individual what he was doing in the
20 early hours, and he replied by stating that he was
21 working late. We asked if he would object to us going
22 into the warehouse, to which he said no. Both myself
23 and WPC Grundy went into the building and went up
24 a flight of stairs to the first floor into a room. When
25 we entered the room I saw approximately six Asian males.
85
1 On a large table in the room I could see a substantial
2 amount of papers and unsealed envelopes scattered all
3 over. The envelopes were of A5 size and the other
4 papers were approximately A4 sized.
5 "I knew the A4 papers were ballot papers because
6 I have voted by post in the past and I was familiar with
7 the ballot papers I saw. I do not know exactly how many
8 ballot papers there were but it looked like hundreds.
9 As far as I could see, they had crosses on them but
10 I did not touch any of them nor did I examine them.
11 "I asked the individuals what they were doing. One
12 of them stated that they had collected the ballot papers
13 on behalf of the community and was going to ensure they
14 got to the elections office on time. I knew what was
15 happening was not right but I have limited or no
16 knowledge of election law and was not sure of whether
17 any criminal offences had been committed and so
18 I requested supervision of a senior officer.
19 "A short while later, PC Harrison 7615 and PC
20 Parsons 9628 arrived and then PS Rattenberry 6180 whom I
21 briefed. Both myself and WPC Grundy left the scene at
22 approximately 01.30 hours and had no further dealings
23 with this matter.
24 "Both myself and WPC Grundy made notes of the
25 individuals present. However, these were not made in
86
1 our personal notebooks. I can further state that I
2 conducted no search of the premises.
3 "I have been shown a Labour Party campaign leaflet
4 which I exhibit at B1 and a magazine exhibited at B2,
5 which contains pictures of individuals. I can identify
6 three of the individuals who were present on the night
7 in question."
8 THE COMMISSIONER: Pausing there. If you turn to page 602,
9 you will see the election leaflet, is that the document
10 we are talking about?
11 A. Yes, it is.
12 THE COMMISSIONER: It contains photographs of Mr Mohammed
13 Afzal, Mr Nazrul Islam and Mr Amin Kazi.
14 A. That is correct.
15 THE COMMISSIONER: If we turn to page 604 we have a document
16 headed "Aston Pride Delivery Partnership Members"
17 followed by 16 photographs.
18 A. That is correct.
19 THE COMMISSIONER: These are the two documents you looked
20 at?
21 A. Yes.
22 THE COMMISSIONER: Could you continue, Mr Sukul?
23 MR SUKUL: The names of these individuals from the leaflet
24 and magazine are Zulfikar Khan, Nazrul Islam and Amin
25 Kazi. I believe that the facts stated in this witness
87
1 statement are true."
2 It is dated 2nd March 2005.
3 THE COMMISSIONER: And we will find Mr Islam and Mr Kazi at
4 page 602 and Mr Zulfikar Khan on 604, second down on the
5 right-hand corner.
6 MR SUKUL: That is correct.
7 THE COMMISSIONER: Can you confirm that? If you look at
8 page 604 the Zulfikar Khan we are talking about is the
9 gentleman whose name appears over the words "Youth
10 Portfolio".
11 A. That is correct.
12 THE COMMISSIONER: If you wait there, other counsel have the
13 right to question you.
14 Cross-examination by MR HAYES
15 MR HAYES: Officer, do you have a copy of your notebook?
16 A. I do not have one with me, no.
17 Q. You must have made notes when you went to the scene
18 because you have mentioned them in your statement.
19 Would it not be helpful for us to see your notebooks?
20 A. There were no notes made in my notebook.
21 Q. You have made a statement which is dated today. That is
22 as a result of what? How did your statement come about?
23 A. I remembered the incident.
24 Q. No, that is not what I asked you. How did your
25 statement come about?
88
1 A. I was interviewed.
2 Q. By whom?
3 A. By the two gentlemen here, yesterday.
4 Q. By the legal defence team of the petitioners?
5 A. That is correct, yes.
6 Q. Have a look at paragraph 10, will you? Page 599:
7 "Both myself and WPC Grundy made notes of the
8 individuals present. However, these were not made in
9 our personal notebooks. I can further state that
10 I conducted no search of the premises."
11 You were told quite properly to go to a warehouse
12 where someone had alleged that there was vote rigging
13 going on, yes?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. You would regard that as rather serious, would you not?
16 A. Yes, I would.
17 Q. Potentially a criminal offence?
18 A. Potentially, yes.
19 Q. What is one of the first things you are taught at police
20 training college, when you go to a potential crime scene
21 and you wish to gather evidence, what are you taught?
22 A. To make notes.
23 Q. Yes. Why did you not make notes?
24 A. I did make notes but they were not in my pocket book.
25 Q. Where are they, can we see them?
89
1 A. No, I do not know where they are.
2 Q. So you are telling the court that this happened on
3 9th June 2004, you can remember precisely what happened
4 without the aid of any notes at all? Is that right?
5 A. I do remember the incident.
6 Q. Of course because you were called to something which
7 would be potentially rather serious. Yes?
8 A. That is correct, yes.
9 Q. You see, I am suggesting to you that of course you may
10 have seen someone open envelopes, but I am suggesting to
11 you that what you did not see was unopened envelopes
12 with ballot papers on display. Yes?
13 A. I believe that I saw ballot papers.
14 Q. You believe that you saw ballot papers. Can you be
15 sure?
16 THE COMMISSIONER: What colour were they?
17 A. I cannot remember the colour.
18 MR HAYES: You cannot remember the colour. But you are
19 pretty sure months after the event, where you do not
20 know where your notes are. Are you sure that is right?
21 A. I am sure that is right.
22 Q. Who did you report to?
23 A. The sergeant who attended the scene.
24 Q. Were there any arrests?
25 A. No, they were no arrests.
90
1 Q. Were there any charges?
2 A. Not to the best of my knowledge, no.
3 Q. There were not, and what happened at the end of all of
4 this, what did the police do?
5 A. I had no personal involvement.
6 Q. Perhaps I should ask someone else. In this interview
7 yesterday, was there a police officer present with you?
8 A. There was, yes.
9 Q. Who was that?
10 A. Detective Sergeant -- I am not sure of his surname.
11 Q. Is he the Detective Sergeant who was here today?
12 A. He was here earlier, yes.
13 Q. How was this interview yesterday conducted?
14 A. There were four of us in a room and they asked me what
15 I remembered.
16 Q. Was it like a police interview, I do not mean the
17 cautions and things like that: well, come on officer,
18 tell us what happened on the night. Was it like that?
19 A. More or less, yes.
20 Q. Not more or less; what actually happened?
21 A. They asked me what I remembered from the evening and
22 I told them.
23 Q. Did anyone prompt you?
24 A. They asked me if I wanted to see information that they
25 had in relation to the logs and I said no, but I could
91
1 remember certain things.
2 Q. Did they say to you "Officer, it is a long time ago,
3 do you have any notes?" and you must have told them no?
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. And no doubt you have dealt with a number of crimes or
6 potential crimes since 9th June of last year, yes?
7 A. Yes, I have.
8 Q. Well, did they say, "When you went into the warehouse,
9 you saw a whole load of envelopes", was it like that?
10 A. No.
11 Q. So a year later you were able to give this highly
12 detailed statement, which you have given here on oath
13 today, without any help from any note or any person?
14 A. That is correct, yes.
15 MR HAYES: I suggest, officer, that you are mistaken about
16 precisely what you saw.
17 THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Barker, any questions?
18 MS BARKER: I have no questions, thank you sir.
19 THE COMMISSIONER: Do you have any questions?
20 Cross-examination by MR BROOK
21 MR BROOK: Just one to clarify, to assist the court.
22 You mentioned there was a Detective Sergeant present
23 in the room. Is it correct that that is standard West
24 Midlands police practice?
25 A. I believe so, yes.
92
1 MR BROOK: Thank you.
2 MR COPPEL: No questions, sir.
3 THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Any re-examination, Mr Sukul?
4 Re-examination by MR SUKUL
5 MR SUKUL: Just the one point, sir.
6 WPC, can you look at page 599? You have it there
7 before you. At paragraph 6, do you see that?
8 A. Yes. I do.
9 Q. It says:
10 "I have voted by post in the past and I was familiar
11 with ballot papers."
12 Did that knowledge you gained when you voted by post
13 in the past help you to form the conclusion that what
14 you were looking at was in fact ballot papers?
15 A. I would say so, yes, I recognised them to be something
16 I had had.
17 MR SUKUL: Thank you very much. Sir, I have no other
18 matters.
19 THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. It certainly should be made
20 clear that a ballot paper looks the same whether it is
21 voting by post or whether it is voting in the polling
22 station.
23 MR SUKUL: Yes.
24 THE COMMISSIONER: You are free to go, thank you for coming.
25 Who is your next witness?
93
1 MR SUKUL: WPC Grundy, please. Her statement is at
2 pages 605 to 609.
3 WPC GRUNDY (sworn)
4 Examination-in-chief by MR SUKUL
5 THE COMMISSIONER: Tell us your name, rank and number.
6 A. My name is WPC 0539 Hannah Grundy.
7 MR SUKUL: WPC Grundy, could you look at page 605 in that
8 bundle in front of you.
9 If you turn to page 607, do you see a signature at
10 the top of that page?
11 A. I do, yes.
12 Q. Is that your signature?
13 A. It is.
14 Q. Is that statement a statement that you have made?
15 A. It is.
16 Q. WPC Grundy, I am going to read the statement and there
17 may be some questions for you:
18 "I am 0539 Grundy, I am a police constable employed
19 by the West Midlands Police and I make this statement
20 and say as follows:
21 "This witness statement contains information which
22 is within my own knowledge save where it is stated
23 otherwise, in which case it is true to the best of my
24 information and belief.
25 "I was on duty with my colleague WPC Bradley on
94
1 9th June 2004 and at approximately 00.34 hours we
2 attended a warehouse known at NT situated on the Wrylie
3 Industrial Estate off Birch Road East following a call
4 in connection to allegations of postal voting
5 irregularities.
6 "Upon arrival we had just parked up outside the NT
7 warehouse. I saw three or four vehicles outside the
8 warehouse and read the details of the vehicles to the
9 controller. I then saw one Asian male who appeared to
10 be leaving the warehouse.
11 "We asked if we could go into