Aston and Bordesley Green Vote Fraud Trial

Friday 4th March 2005

1 Friday, 4th March 2005
2 (10.00 am)
3 MR HAYES: Sir, my learned friends and I have had
4 a discussion and we are of the view that it is a matter
5 we ought to raise with you but it would be proper and
6 fair if we do so in chambers.
7 THE COMMISSIONER: Does it affect this witness?
8 MR HAYES: It does not.
9 THE COMMISSIONER: Let us finish this witness.
10 MR SUKUL: Sir, just one very minor formality. I asked your
11 learned clerk to mention that Mr Raymond Ali of
12 counsel -- he appeared before your good self on two or
13 three occasions and I seek your leave that he should be
14 allowed.
15 THE COMMISSIONER: You do not need my leave.
16 MR COPPEL: Before I resume, can I ask if they have not
17 already been removed from the court for other witnesses
18 who are touching upon the plastic bag evidence be out of
19 court while Mr Aziz speaks to that matter. They are
20 Mr Naim Ahmed, Mr Asif Iqbal, and as I understand it,
21 they are the only other witnesses my learned friend
22 intends to call who speak to the plastic bag.
23 THE COMMISSIONER: If they are in court could they please go
24 out of court for the moment.
25 MR COPPEL: Sir, I do not know whether you do wish to deal
1

1 with that matter now?
2 THE COMMISSIONER: I am simply reassuring Mr Brodie that
3 I had not forgotten.
4 Mr Aziz, you are still on oath.
5 MR ABDUL AZIZ (continued)
6 Cross-examination by MR COPPEL (continued)
7 MR COPPEL: Mr Aziz, yesterday I started asking you about
8 the Nickleby bag, do you remember that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you began by telling the court that you had seen the
11 bag on one of the counting tables in the room where the
12 Aston ballots were to be counted. Do you remember that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you said that you had seen that it was full of B
15 envelopes, which we identified, but that on top were
16 some European ballots which were open and not bound
17 together. Correct?
18 A. That is right. And local ballot papers as well.
19 Q. Local ballot papers as well?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You did not say that yesterday, Mr Aziz. Is that a new
22 story?
23 A. No, it is in my statement.
24 Q. Well, did you think about this last night?
25 A. No sir.
2

1 Q. Can I show you --
2 THE COMMISSIONER: It is in his statement at paragraph 3,
3 first sentence.
4 MR COPPEL: It is in his statement.
5 Can I show you the transcript. (Handed)
6 THE COMMISSIONER: This is yesterday's transcript?
7 MR COPPEL: This is yesterday's transcript. We have an
8 extract here, page 58. It should start at the top EP on
9 3.03.05. That means 3rd March 2005.
10 THE COMMISSIONER: My opening words -- we may have different
11 pagination. On page 57, line 11, I say:
12 "Mr Coppel, I see your obvious objection to this."
13 MR COPPEL: Sir, I do not know whether yours is the
14 uncorrected or the corrected.
15 THE COMMISSIONER: I have a paper copy there, I was just
16 doing it on the screen.
17 MR COPPEL: The version we have on the front is the
18 corrected version and I know that the pages differ
19 between the corrected and the uncorrected, and as one
20 goes through --
21 THE COMMISSIONER: If you could find the point where I say
22 "Mr Coppel, I see your obvious objection", I can find
23 where I am on the screen.
24 MR COPPEL: Sir, so that we get a fix on it, Mr Aziz -- this
25 passage has been cross-examined. You refer a little bit
3

1 earlier on, sir, to photocopied material being provided
2 overnight and Mr De Mello indicates that he has no
3 questions for the witness.
4 Do you have that, sir? (Pause)
5 We are about a page and a bit before I open my
6 cross-examination of Mr Aziz. (Pause)
7 THE COMMISSIONER: I simply cannot locate it. I think you
8 had better just put it to him as it is, and I will check
9 against the paper copy later.
10 MR COPPEL: Mr Aziz, yesterday I started asking you about
11 the Bordesley Green bag, its contents, and you stated
12 that you saw it on the table, on the counting table, and
13 then if we pick up from the transcript --
14 A. The Bordesley Green bag, sir?
15 Q. I am sorry, Aston.
16 Then we pick up from the top of page 58, you see
17 there is an answer there "yes". The question that went
18 before that was, I had asked you whether the bag was on
19 the counting table and you answer yes.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Then I ask: together with other votes? You say some
22 votes, they were lying around on the table in the
23 envelopes.
24 "Question: Were your suspicions immediately aroused
25 or did that only come later?
4

1 "Answer: As I passed them I saw the loose ballot
2 papers and that aroused my suspicions.
3 "Question: Did you have a good look at what was in
4 the bag at that stage?
5 "Answer: I was not allowed to.
6 "Question: Did you try to?
7 "Answer: Yes, I approached the officer and I said
8 'What are these bags doing here with open ballot
9 papers?' And then she looked at...
10 "Question: What did you see, what exactly did you
11 see in the bag, did you see any envelope Bs?
12 "Answer: Envelope B, yes.
13 "Question: I will identify what an envelope B is
14 for you."
15 And then I pulled out, you may remember, the
16 envelope B, and I asked you:
17 "It is like this, it has two purple corners which we
18 call flashers. The postage is paid, it has a window and
19 the letter B and it is this size."
20 And I asked you:
21 "Did you see any of those?" And you said:
22 "Yes."
23 "Question: You saw them in the bag?
24 "Answer: Yes:
25 I asked you what else you saw in the bag and you
5

1 answered --
2 A. European and local ballot papers.
3 Q. You say they were loosely on top as well?
4 A. That is right. What is the problem?
5 Q. How many local ballot papers did you see loosely stored
6 on top?
7 A. Eight, nine, seven.
8 Q. Not many?
9 A. Not many.
10 Q. But the rest of the bag was full of the envelope Bs, was
11 it?
12 A. It is significant that that number of loose papers were
13 on top.
14 Q. So that is what we are talking about?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. I just wonder, sir, if you still have a copy of the plan
17 of the National Indoor Arena, which we used in the
18 Bordesley Green petition and which Mr Owen will be
19 introducing.
20 THE COMMISSIONER: The answer to that is yes, but it is up
21 in my room.
22 MR COPPEL: My instructing solicitor of course has a copy,
23 but it is the only copy I have.
24 MR BRODIE: I have a spare.
25 THE COMMISSIONER: Can I use it temporarily? It is exhibit
6

1 R4 from the first trial. Do you want it as exhibit R in
2 this trial?
3 MR COPPEL: What I propose to do is Mr Owen is going to
4 speak to it and my instructing solicitor indeed has more
5 copies. What is important is for the witness of course
6 to have a copy. (Handed)
7 THE COMMISSIONER: This is a plan of the National Indoor
8 Arena as it was laid out on 11th June of last year. The
9 only thing that is not necessarily correct is that it is
10 not necessarily the case that the counters' tables in
11 each of the pens were arranged as they appear in the
12 picture. But otherwise there are eight pens.
13 MR COPPEL: Sir, could I interrupt you there? That is not
14 case in the Bordesley Green pen. The evidence will be
15 that it is as depicted in the plan to a substantial
16 extent so far as the Aston pen is concerned.
17 THE COMMISSIONER: So in that case there is no real
18 variation. Which letter is the Aston pen?
19 MR COPPEL: E for elephant.
20 THE COMMISSIONER: Perhaps you can assist, what other wards
21 are being dealt with there?
22 MR COPPEL: In that room were Aston, Ladywood, Nechelles,
23 Soho and Sparkbrook.
24 THE COMMISSIONER: What is the fifth one?
25 MR COPPEL: Sparkbrook.
7

1 THE COMMISSIONER: So a big chunk of the central area.
2 MR COPPEL: Mr Aziz, do you see the plan?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you see the letter E?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do you recognise that as being the room in which
7 you were on 11th June?
8 A. Not really, sir. Are those tables under letter E?
9 Q. Yes, they are. It is slightly obliterated by the letter
10 E but you can see there are four tables going from left
11 to right and then there is a fifth table at the top.
12 Do you see that?
13 A. Yes. I only remember a partition at the back and then
14 two tables, a table this way, and a table along there.
15 Q. You only remember two tables, is that right?
16 A. I remember a table this way (indicating) and a table
17 that way, and a partition at the back.
18 Q. Can you only remember two tables in that room or do you
19 remember more than two tables?
20 A. There is a long table, yes.
21 Q. I am asking you --
22 THE COMMISSIONER: How many long tables?
23 A. There were about three or four tables joined together
24 and then on one side a table and on the other side.
25 MR COPPEL: I am going to suggest to you that there were
8

1 five separate tables, one table for each of the wards
2 being counted in the room marked E on the plan. Do you
3 agree or do you disagree?
4 A. I disagree that that was the plan. I do not recall it
5 as having been in that ...
6 Q. You concerned yourself exclusively with the Aston ward,
7 that is correct, is it not?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. The Aston papers were being counted separately from any
10 of the other wards which were being counted in room E,
11 correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And on the table or part of the table, as you would have
14 it, on which the Aston ward papers were being counted at
15 one end counting was going on and at the other end
16 opening of envelopes was going on. That is correct, is
17 it not?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Some staff were devoted to envelope opening, were they
20 not, and other staff were devoted to counting the ballot
21 papers; that is correct, is it not?
22 A. That is correct.
23 Q. Which end were you at? The counting end or the opening
24 end or did you move between the two?
25 A. I moved between the two.
9

1 Q. What was happening at the opening end was that the
2 postal ballots, that is the B envelopes with the purple
3 corners, were poured on to the table, correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Staff would then slit open envelope B, that is correct,
6 is it not?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And inside, generally, was a numbered declaration of
9 identity and a numbered envelope A, that is correct, is
10 it not?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Sometimes that was not the case but by and large that
13 was the case?
14 A. That is right.
15 Q. The staff would then check that the declaration of
16 identity was properly signed and witnessed, correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. They would reject any declaration of identity that was
19 not properly signed and witnessed, correct?
20 A. Possibly.
21 Q. You say possibly?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Are you telling this court that sometimes the staff
24 accepted a declaration of identity that was not properly
25 signed by the voter?
10

1 A. I was not aware of it, no. I have not seen it.
2 Q. You do not suggest, do you, that sometimes the staff
3 accepted a declaration of identity which had not been
4 signed by a witness and no address given, do you?
5 A. Possibly, having witnessed -- having seen what
6 transpired in the local election, I believe that the
7 entire election system was at the disposal of these
8 candidates.
9 Q. Mr Aziz, did you see instances in which staff of the
10 elections office accepted as valid a declaration of
11 identity that had not been signed by a witness and that
12 did not have a witness's address?
13 A. I have seen a couple.
14 Q. You saw it a couple of times on that day, did you?
15 A. On that day, yes.
16 Q. What did you do, did you say nothing or complain?
17 A. I did complain to the presiding officer.
18 Q. Help me, where do I find this in your witness statement?
19 A. Now you have asked it, I have said it. It may not be
20 in the witness statement, I do not know. I do not
21 recall.
22 Q. It is an important matter, is it not?
23 A. It is.
24 Q. It is a very important matter. You are making a very
25 serious accusation against the staff of the elections
11

1 office.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And you have forgotten to put it in your witness
4 statement?
5 A. I have stated that I have complained to the -- I did
6 make complaints. But if no action was taken there was
7 nothing -- not my problem.
8 Q. What did the person from the elections office say when
9 you said, "Look at this declaration of identity, there
10 is no signature here by a witness and there is no
11 address details of this witness", what did they say?
12 A. Speak to our superiors.
13 Q. Did you?
14 A. They said they were going to speak to the superiors.
15 Q. Did they put them on the side?
16 A. I do not know. I was very busy looking at other votes
17 that were coming out, the ballot papers ...
18 Q. So here was something that obviously ought not to be
19 accepted as valid which you have pointed out and did not
20 follow through, is that what you are telling this court?
21 A. I had no confidence in the electoral system.
22 Q. You did not follow it through, correct or incorrect?
23 A. I had no confidence in the electoral system.
24 Q. Did you follow it through, yes or no?
25 A. I knew nothing would be done. It was useless, futile,
12

1 pursuing something that I knew would not be done
2 anything about.
3 Q. Just so we get a fix on this new allegation, how often
4 do you say this occurred?
5 A. A couple of times.
6 Q. Did you object every single time or did you just say
7 after the first one "That's the way it goes"?
8 A. That's the way it goes.
9 Q. Putting those couple or so aside, the approach that was
10 taken by the elections officers was that if they were
11 properly signed, that is the declaration of identity,
12 and witnessed, the officers would check that the number
13 on the declaration of identity and envelope B matched.
14 That is correct, is it not?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And if they did match then the officers would open up
17 envelope B; that is correct, is it not?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And once that had been done, they would check the number
20 on the envelope with the number on the reverse of the
21 ballot, correct?
22 A. If you say so.
23 Q. I am asking you, Mr Aziz, not whether I say so. Did
24 they or did they not do that?
25 A. I was not all the time looking at what they were doing,
13

1 I was looking at ballot papers coming out as well so
2 I cannot say what ...
3 Q. I am talking about the process, you were there for
4 hours. This process was going on for hours. Is that
5 the process they adopted or is it not the process they
6 adopted?
7 A. As far as I could make out, yes.
8 Q. That process was the process they adopted in relation to
9 the contents of the Nickleby bag, was it not, that
10 matching process?
11 A. They did, yes. Some, yes, they did. I saw them tipping
12 the box on the table and afterwards move down as well to
13 other ...
14 THE COMMISSIONER: Can we get this absolutely clear. What
15 did you see them do with the Nickleby bag and its
16 contents?
17 A. They just tipped them on the table, sir.
18 THE COMMISSIONER: With the other envelopes or at
19 a different part of the table?
20 A. With the same, on the corner.
21 THE COMMISSIONER: They put it on the corner of the table
22 where they had been opening other envelopes.
23 A. Yes.
24 THE COMMISSIONER: And they opened the envelopes that were
25 in the Nickleby bag.
14

1 A. Yes.
2 THE COMMISSIONER: What do you say they did with the loose
3 ballot papers?
4 A. Just put them aside, sir.
5 MR COPPEL: That is the loose ballot papers both European,
6 white, and local, yellow, correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. The ones that were loose, the seven or eight I think you
9 identified, local election plus the European, they were
10 rejected, were they not?
11 A. The last I saw them, they were on the table. I do not
12 know whether they were rejected.
13 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Coppel, clearly you put that on
14 instructions. Is it going to be your case that they
15 were rejected?
16 MR COPPEL: The ones that were not able to be matched were
17 rejected, yes.
18 THE COMMISSIONER: So if there were any loose ballot papers
19 in the Nickleby bag and they had no accompanying
20 documentation they would be rejected.
21 MR COPPEL: Yes.
22 THE COMMISSIONER: If there was no matching declaration of
23 identity to be found, they would be rejected?
24 MR COPPEL: Exactly.
25 THE COMMISSIONER: In which case you may not be very far
15

1 apart on the Nickleby bag then.
2 MR COPPEL: Other than various other matters which have been
3 mentioned.
4 THE COMMISSIONER: As I understand it, it is not in issue
5 that there was at some stage or may have been
6 a Nickleby's bag which had arrived at the NIA, and as
7 I understand it your evidence will be that this was
8 simply a way in which certain documents were perfectly
9 properly carried from one building to another.
10 MR COPPEL: If we did not have paragraph 4 of Mr Aziz's
11 witness statement I would be happy to rest the matter
12 here. But because we do and because that makes
13 certainly at the very least a very serious insinuation
14 against, amongst other people, Mr Mirza Ahmed, it has to
15 be explored unless my learned friends wish to resile
16 from that.
17 THE COMMISSIONER: I do not criticise you for exploring it,
18 I am just wondering how wide or narrow the gap between
19 you is. As I understand it, this gentleman does not
20 claim to have seen the Nickleby's bag arrive at the NIA.
21 We know, I do not think there is any dispute, that when
22 did it appear there was some argument over it. That is
23 common ground, is it not?
24 MR COPPEL: Yes, that is common ground, but the way it is
25 put by Mr Aziz is that the decision to count the
16

1 contents of the Nickleby bag followed after what I will
2 term a huddle between --
3 THE COMMISSIONER: That clearly you would wish to challenge
4 and you should challenge. I just wondered in general
5 how the lead-up to that, how much dispute there was
6 between you.
7 MR COPPEL: Not much.
8 THE COMMISSIONER: I am not suggesting that any of your
9 cross-examination is other than relevant or proper,
10 I just wanted to examine where the actual differences
11 lay.
12 MR COPPEL: As it has come out this morning, not much is the
13 answer.
14 MR BRODIE: Can I raise something because this evidence
15 in the position of the Returning Officer is quite
16 relevant to the Bordesley Green case.
17 I had the opportunity of looking at the evidence in
18 this case and in particular the evidence of the
19 Returning Officer. As was the case at the outset of the
20 Bordesley Green petition, there is no evidence filed by
21 the Returning Officer that denies the assertion made in
22 this petition that this bag contained loose ballots.
23 There is evidence about how the bag might have got
24 into the NIA but there was not evidence, as there was
25 not in the Bordesley Green petition, as to its contents.
17

1 So as things stand, if there is no cross-examination of
2 any of the witnesses called by the Returning Officer in
3 due course, the evidence will go unchallenged by
4 evidence called by the Returning Officer. And the court
5 will be invited to find on uncontested evidence that the
6 Nickleby bag contained these loose votes.
7 This is how it becomes relevant to Bordesley Green.
8 Is it the case of Mr Coppel on behalf of the Returning
9 Officer that these two similar allegations made by
10 differing parties whose counts were conducted in
11 differing pens was the result of independent complaints,
12 or is he suggesting that this is explicable on the basis
13 of collusion? That is something I would like answered
14 for the purposes of the Bordesley Green petition because
15 otherwise we are talking about two coincidences.
16 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, unconnected.
17 MR BRODIE: Whereas on the face of it, our case is that the
18 contents of the Nickleby bag, which are not challenged
19 as things stand, are very corroborative of the
20 allegation made concerning the three boxes in the
21 Bordesley Green count.
22 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Did you hear that, Mr Coppel?
23 MR COPPEL: I will answer it right now. My learned friend
24 says what a coincidence, they are corroborative.
25 We have just heard the evidence from Mr Aziz that what
18

1 we are concerned with is a large plastic bag containing
2 300 to 400 envelope Bs, some loose European ballot
3 papers, they do not concern us here, we park those; and
4 seven or eight loose local election papers.
5 My learned friend's case in Bordesley Green was that
6 every single one of the 1,700-odd documents in those
7 three ballot boxes was not in an envelope B, was in an
8 envelope A, the envelope A had a declaration of identity
9 in it. There is no similarity between the two. The
10 whole premise of my learned friend's interjection is
11 misconceived.
12 THE COMMISSIONER: I think the similarity that arises is
13 this: it may be at a very low level but here you have
14 votes appearing in circumstances which at the time the
15 candidates or some of them considered to be suspicious
16 and improper.
17 We get a decision taken that they should be
18 admitted. We get an allegation that those votes, when
19 they appear, turn out to be Labour votes. These are the
20 allegations. It is also alleged in both cases that the
21 Returning Officer's team do not adequately listen to
22 complaints being made by those who have suspicions about
23 the material.
24 That is the similarity between them. How far that
25 takes me is a matter on which I shall have to be
19

1 addressed at some future time. Mr Brodie is quite
2 entitled, if he thinks there is any mileage in this
3 incident, to rely on it in Bordesley Green.
4 MR BRODIE: It is rather more than simply what, with
5 respect, you have set out as the similarity. What
6 we are saying is that there was not merely an excitable
7 atmosphere in these two counts that was in common, there
8 was a chaotic conduct of the count.
9 What we have here is an incident which on any view
10 is unfortunate, but a priority being placed on getting
11 the count finished irrespective of the problems of these
12 votes. There was insufficient investigation in both
13 cases.
14 THE COMMISSIONER: So the complaint you would say in both
15 cases is at the end of the day that investigation of the
16 complaints was unduly curtailed in the interests of
17 speed.
18 MR BRODIE: Precisely.
19 THE COMMISSIONER: That is the way it is put, Mr Coppel.
20 MR COPPEL: If that is all there is to my learned friend's
21 interjection, so be it. As I understand what he has
22 said, there was disappointment from those in the room
23 and it was dealt with, he says, by the Returning
24 Officer's officials too quickly.
25 THE COMMISSIONER: And with insufficient enquiry is the way
20

1 it is put.
2 MR COPPEL: So be it. But if he is going beyond that and
3 saying that there is similarity between contents, which
4 I do not understand him to be saying, then that is
5 another matter altogether.
6 MR BRODIE: Mr Coppel rarely misunderstands me. I am saying
7 precisely that. I am saying if in the Aston count there
8 was a large bag of questionable provenance that
9 contained loose ballots that on the face of it were
10 counted as part of the electoral process, it makes it
11 more likely that that was the case in Bordesley Green as
12 well.
13 THE COMMISSIONER: You have shown, as it were, system.
14 MR BRODIE: It is corroborative.
15 THE COMMISSIONER: It is corroborative of a situation where
16 corners were being cut.
17 MR BRODIE: Yes.
18 THE COMMISSIONER: Improperly you say.
19 MR BRODIE: And substantially.
20 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Coppel, you see the case which is
21 being made.
22 MR SUKUL: I wonder if I might just clarify this one point.
23 I hear what my learned friend is saying, and it is just
24 this. There would not have been any need to cut the
25 corners if it was the case in fact that there were loose
21

1 ballot papers, yellow ones, in the Nickleby bag.
2 My question is this. Is the Returning Officer,
3 because I have not seen it in the Returning Officer's
4 evidence, I have not seen any express denial of the
5 allegations that the petitioners make that there were
6 loose yellow ballot papers in the Nickleby bag.
7 THE COMMISSIONER: I am sure Mr Coppel will give you chapter
8 and verse if it exists.
9 MR COPPEL: Mr Coppel will give you chapter and verse.
10 Mr Coppel will also be putting in evidence dealing with
11 just what we have heard from Mr Aziz. We have only
12 heard it this morning.
13 Let us remind ourselves what Mr Aziz told this
14 court, that the Nickleby bag was full of envelope Bs but
15 that in addition there were loose some seven or eight
16 yellow local election ballot papers.
17 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
18 MR COPPEL: That is what we will deal with because that
19 number does not appear in Mr Aziz's witness statement.
20 MR SUKUL: I do not think I have put my point properly.
21 What I am saying is this. I have not seen in any of the
22 Returning Officer's evidence, witness statements,
23 a denial that there was these -- whether it be one or
24 a thousand yellow ballot papers in the Nickleby bag.
25 All I ask is whether that is or is not the case. Is
22

1 the Returning Officer now saying that we deny those
2 loose ballot papers were there or is he admitting it?
3 That is all I ask.
4 MR COPPEL: The Returning Officer is going to take
5 instructions on the matter as one generally does when
6 matters come out in the course of a hearing.
7 THE COMMISSIONER: The Nickleby bag and this gentleman's
8 allegations about the contents have been in the case.
9 This is a statement that was served in accordance with
10 the orders, and therefore that has been, as it were, on
11 the table since the statement came in.
12 Although I have read your statements I cannot off
13 the top of my head recall whether you do or do not deal
14 with the point.
15 MR COPPEL: It is not in my learned friend's schedule of
16 allegations, the compendious schedule of allegations.
17 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
18 MR COPPEL: Which was ordered to be produced in order to
19 provide the Returning Officer with the matters that she
20 had to deal with.
21 THE COMMISSIONER: It seems to me that the essence of this
22 allegation is this: here was a suspicious bag of
23 material, to put it neutrally, and the proper course
24 would have been either to reject it out of hand, or to
25 have postponed including it in the ballot until some
23

1 time when its provenance could be properly investigated.
2 That is in a sense the charge that is being made
3 against you. So that whether the votes are as a matter
4 of objective fact valid or invalid we will never know
5 because the corn was cut. That is what is being said in
6 essence. It may not be how Mr Sukul puts it but that is
7 how I take it.
8 MR COPPEL: We hear that, we have heard the evidence today
9 and we will answer it. But to deal with Mr Sukul's
10 point, "I really do not see that at the moment in the
11 Returning Officer's evidence". This is what they say in
12 their compendious schedule of allegations against the
13 Returning Officer to which the Returning Officer
14 faithfully answered in her evidence through her 14 or so
15 witnesses.
16 9 says:
17 "The Returning Officer unlawfully failed to conduct
18 any enquiry as to the provenance of a plastic shopping
19 bag, which bag contained unsealed covering envelopes,
20 unsealed envelopes A, which envelopes contained inter
21 alia ballots."
22 10:
23 "The Returning Officer failed to conduct any inquiry
24 into the problems of a bundle of unmarked European
25 ballots wrapped in an elastic band and located at the
24

1 top of the said plastic shopping bag."
2 Nothing about the local government election ballots
3 that Mr Aziz has mentioned today.
4 THE COMMISSIONER: That indeed may be right but the
5 allegations on the table, it can and no doubt will be
6 dealt with.
7 But I think the more serious allegation is failure
8 to conduct a proper enquiry.
9 MR COPPEL: As to that, of course the Returning Officer has
10 spoken and has spoken extensively.
11 THE COMMISSIONER: Indeed.
12 MR COPPEL: My learned friend's interjection was: you have
13 not mentioned these local government ballots in the
14 witness statements. The answer to that is: we will deal
15 with it. We have not dealt with it now because it was
16 not in your so-called schedule of allegations.
17 MR SUKUL: The so-called schedule of allegations said
18 this: local government yellow ballot papers could be
19 seen in this Nickleby's bag. If that be the case and
20 that is part of the express allegations, that in itself
21 should have triggered the enquiry to which we have been
22 referencing over the last 15 minutes.
23 THE COMMISSIONER: Do you wish me to look at the schedule of
24 allegations?
25 MR COPPEL: I do.
25

1 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Sukul, where --
2 MR SUKUL: I have it not before me but Mr Coppel was reading
3 it. I have no doubt that he has read it accurately.
4 I think it is the allegation 10, if my memory is right.
5 MR COPPEL: Allegation 10 reads:
6 "The Returning Officer unlawfully --
7 THE COMMISSIONER: Page?
8 MR COPPEL: 269 to 274. The relevant page is 274(x), not
9 a word about local government ballot papers. What we
10 say is that the express mention of one infers the
11 exclusion of the other.
12 I will spare you the Latin, sir.
13 THE COMMISSIONER: There we are, Mr Sukul. It is not in
14 your schedule of allegations. It is in your witness
15 statements. They have had the witness statements, they
16 have not responded to the witness statements, but they
17 may or may not respond to the schedule of allegations.
18 It is a matter which can and no doubt will be dealt with
19 at a later stage.
20 MR SUKUL: It is not in 10, sir, but it is in 9.
21 MR COPPEL: That is not what it says.
22 THE COMMISSIONER: Read 9 out.
23 MR SUKUL: "The Returning Officer unlawfully failed to
24 conduct any enquiry as to the provenance of a plastic
25 shopping bag, which bag contained unsealed covering
26

1 envelopes, unsealed envelopes A, which envelopes
2 contained amongst other things ballots."
3 THE COMMISSIONER: That is not an allegation of loose local
4 ballot papers.
5 MR SUKUL: The point I am making is that that allegation in
6 itself should have triggered the investigation if it be
7 the case that those loose ballots or the unsealed
8 envelopes were visible.
9 THE COMMISSIONER: The point being made is limited though
10 correct, that you do not spell out in your schedule of
11 allegations that there were loose ballot papers in the
12 Nickleby bag.
13 MR SUKUL: We are heavily into semantics here.
14 THE COMMISSIONER: No, we are not, it does not say so.
15 There may be a good reason for this and it is
16 undoubtedly in this witness's statement which the
17 Returning Officer has had. So it may well be that we
18 are simply arguing about whether something should have
19 been in one document if it was in the other. But it
20 certainly has not taken Mr Coppel by surprise because
21 it is there in the statement.
22 MR COPPEL: May I resume, sir?
23 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
24 MR COPPEL: Paragraph 4. Mr Aziz, are you there?
25 A. I do not have a statement.
27

1 THE COMMISSIONER: Could he be given bundle 2 please?
2 (Handed).
3 It is page 313.
4 MR COPPEL: Here we are dealing with the conversation that
5 you say took place with, amongst other people, Mr Owen,
6 that is the elections officer, and Mr Amin, chief legal
7 officer of Birmingham City Council.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. You state there:
10 "I later spoke to Ayoub Khan and Naim Ahmed and
11 I think John Hemming was also informed about the bag.
12 Ayoub Khan argued with Naim, the chief election officer,
13 Mr Owen, and Mr Mirza Ahmed, the legal officer."
14 First question, Mr Aziz, is at what time did you
15 have this conversation with Mr Ayoub Khan?
16 A. I cannot remember, as soon as he arrived. I do not
17 know.
18 Q. How long was it after the opening and counting process
19 started, an hour, half an hour?
20 A. About an hour.
21 Q. It was about an hour, was it?
22 A. About half an hour after the process started.
23 Q. How long did you have a conversation with Mr Ayoub Khan
24 for?
25 A. I told him about the bag and my suspicions of it.
28

1 Q. How long did that all take?
2 A. A few minutes.
3 Q. Did you then speak to the Deputy Returning Officer, that
4 is a woman called Alison Harding, is that right?
5 A. I do not know her name, but I spoke to her when
6 I arrived and I saw the bag at that stage.
7 Q. That is when you spoke to her, is it?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Can we perhaps look to see what she says about it.
10 I wonder if you could be passed her witness statement,
11 which is in ...
12 THE COMMISSIONER: It will be in the same bundle.
13 MR COPPEL: Page 505.
14 If you look at 505 you see it is a witness statement
15 from Alison Harding. She speaks to certain other
16 matters but I wonder if you could turn please to
17 paragraph 10. This is what she says:
18 "It was not until some time later, possibly later
19 that morning, that the contents of the Nickleby bag were
20 questioned although I cannot recall exactly who asked
21 me. I recall confirming to the candidates and the
22 agents gathered around the table at the time that the
23 bag had been with the ballot boxes that morning.
24 "At about this time I did ask Ken Moore, the senior
25 Deputy Returning Officer, and the chief legal officer,
29

1 Mirza Ahmed, for assistance as candidates and their
2 agents from all the parties were continually hassling
3 counters by leaning over them, holding on to their
4 chairs and generally distracting them. During the
5 latter part of the morning, barriers were put up at the
6 end of the tables to ensure that individuals present
7 at the count remained behind the counting assistants.
8 I cannot remember whether Ken Moore or I called Mirza
9 Ahmed over or whether he happened to be close to my
10 table as he was walking around the area throughout the
11 day."
12 Do you remember Mr Moore, the senior Deputy
13 Returning Officer, being brought into the matter
14 together with Mr Ahmed?
15 A. No, sir.
16 Q. Do you remember the barriers being put up at the end of
17 the tables to ensure that individuals remained behind
18 the counting assistants?
19 A. No, sir.
20 Q. Do you remember her confirming to the candidates and the
21 agents that the bag had been with the ballot boxes that
22 morning?
23 A. No, sir.
24 THE COMMISSIONER: I think really if you are going to put
25 this lady's statement to Mr Aziz, I think you ought to
30

1 deal with this a little more fundamentally. Her
2 evidence is that the Nickleby's bag was taken and opened
3 and dealt with before the matter was referred to anybody
4 in authority and any decision taken, which is clearly
5 different to what this gentleman is saying, rightly or
6 wrongly: we saw the Nickleby bag, we objected,
7 a decision was then taken to look at its contents and
8 against our will they were then looked at and put into
9 the ballot.
10 But what Ms Harding is saying is that we just went
11 ahead willy-nilly and tipped them out on to the table
12 and proceeded to process them.
13 MR COPPEL: We do not accept willy-nilly, sir.
14 THE COMMISSIONER: She does not say that she was given any
15 specific instructions with regard to this bag.
16 MR COPPEL: Sir, this is causing me to jump ahead but I do
17 not mind. That is in fact what happened, is it not,
18 that the bag was at the beginning of the opening process
19 tipped out on to the table, correct?
20 A. No.
21 Q. It was not?
22 A. No.
23 Q. When do you say it was tipped out?
24 A. I would say hours later.
25 Q. Towards lunchtime?
31

1 A. Most likely, sir.
2 THE COMMISSIONER: And before or after you objected?
3 A. After, sir.
4 MR COPPEL: So that I understand, at the opening end of the
5 table, that is where envelopes were being slit open,
6 their contents taken out. You are there at 9 o'clock
7 in the morning. Were they just opening the other
8 ballots, that is the non-Nickleby bag envelopes?
9 A. That is right.
10 Q. At that time?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So that I understand your evidence, you say that
13 a Nickleby bag was put aside, left as it was --
14 A. Still on the corner.
15 Q. -- for a couple of hours?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And do you also say that before the contents of the
18 Nickleby bag were poured on to the table, all of the
19 other postal ballots were slit open and matched up
20 before they started on the Nickleby bag. Is that your
21 evidence?
22 A. I am not sure of that.
23 Q. So it may be that some were mixed in together, is that
24 it?
25 A. Yes, sir.
32

1 Q. Well, you say you do not remember Mr Moore being brought
2 into the matter together with Mr Ahmed. Do you agree
3 with paragraph 10, how it describes Mr Ahmed and
4 Mr Moore getting involved in the matter?
5 A. As I have no knowledge of it, I cannot agree with you.
6 I do not know.
7 Q. You just do not know?
8 A. I do not know.
9 Q. Mr Ahmed, after he had been brought in, sought help from
10 Mr Owen, did he not?
11 A. I have no idea, sir.
12 Q. Do you remember Mr Owen in relation to this incident?
13 A. The last time I saw him was in conversation with
14 Mr Ahmed, Councillor Afzal, and Mr Owen.
15 Q. So you do remember Mr Owen being involved in the
16 acceptance of the papers in the Nickleby bag, is that
17 correct?
18 A. I do not know what orders he gave or what he said,
19 I only saw him in conversation. I did not hold any
20 conversation with him so I have no idea.
21 Q. Mr Owen was being pushed and pushed, was he not, by
22 party supporters who give a definitive statement --
23 THE COMMISSIONER: You mean physically pushed or just urged?
24 MR COPPEL: Urged. Urged to give a definitive statement as
25 to where the bag had come from, was he not?
33

1 A. It is possible, sir.
2 Q. Do you know or do you not know.
3 A. I do not know.
4 Q. The atmosphere in the room at the Aston table at that
5 time was shall we say excitable?
6 A. Yes, given the situation, I would say yes.
7 Q. There were lots of people all talking at the same time;
8 correct?
9 A. Possibly, yes. There was conversation, a buzz.
10 Q. It was more than polite conversation, was it not; people
11 were talking in loud voices, were they not?
12 A. I would not say it was very loud.
13 Q. Being forceful?
14 A. Forceful, yes.
15 Q. They were not always listening to what the responses
16 were from the election officer, were they?
17 A. I think the election officer was not listening, it is
18 the other way round.
19 Q. It is the other way round, is it?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. The election officers were giving answers which people
22 at the table, agents and supporters, were simply not
23 accepting. That is correct, is it not?
24 A. Not to my knowledge, no.
25 Q. So they always accepted what came out of the mouth of
34

1 the elections officers, is that what you are saying?
2 THE COMMISSIONER: Did they agree with what the election
3 officers were saying?
4 A. No sir, they disputed. As far as I know.
5 THE COMMISSIONER: They did not agree.
6 A. Yes, they disagreed. Particularly with respect to the
7 Nickleby bag.
8 MR COPPEL: Mr Aziz, look at the next sentence in
9 paragraph 4. This is what you say:
10 "I then saw Mr Mirza Ahmed [that is the chief legal
11 officer], Mr Owen [the head of the elections office],
12 Sir Albert Bore."
13 He is the head of the council, is he not?
14 A. Yes.
15 THE COMMISSIONER: Was.
16 MR COPPEL: I am sorry, was at that time. He was the head
17 of the council.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And he is Labour, is he not?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And Mohammed Afzal in deep conversation?
22 THE COMMISSIONER: The Mr Afzal being referred to is the
23 candidate.
24 MR COPPEL: Yes:
25 "And soon after, the go-ahead for votes in the bag
35

1 to be counted was given."
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Are you there suggesting, Mr Aziz, that either
4 Sir Albert Bore or Mr Afzal improperly influenced either
5 Mr Ahmed or Mr Owen in relation to any decision they
6 made to open and accept the ballot papers in the bag?
7 A. They may have done. There was 20 years of Labour rule.
8 They did not want to give it up easily, it is possible.
9 Q. Mr Aziz, I am not going to accept that as a satisfactory
10 answer. This is a very serious matter. Are you making
11 that allegation or are you not making that allegation?
12 A. I am saying it is possible. I have no way of knowing, I
13 did not overhear them saying it so I do not know what
14 went on.
15 Q. Are you suggesting in that sentence that there was
16 impropriety on the part of either Mr Ahmed or Mr Owen,
17 yes or no?
18 A. Having a conversation, no...
19 THE COMMISSIONER: I think the suggestion is implicit in the
20 factual evidence. I appreciate that it is disputed, but
21 if the circumstances were as this witness describes,
22 then it would certainly be open to question if the
23 election officials conferred with, as it were, one side
24 only. Whatever the result of that conference was, that
25 would be at least open to criticism irrespective of what
36

1 may or may not have been said.
2 MR COPPEL: Sir, this is a very serious allegation against
3 two officers of the council.
4 THE COMMISSIONER: I follow that, but the serious bit of the
5 allegation is essentially that they discussed the matter
6 with one party and not with others. That is the
7 seriousness of it.
8 The contents of the discussion in a sense are almost
9 irrelevant.
10 MR COPPEL: The seriousness of it lies in that plus the fact
11 that, as the witness states in his statement, soon after
12 the go-ahead for the votes in the bag to be counted was
13 given. Therein lies the bar.
14 THE COMMISSIONER: I am asked to withdraw the inference post
15 (inaudible).
16 MR COPPEL: I am asking this witness to confirm whether or
17 not that is what he says because it is a very serious
18 allegation, is it not, Mr Aziz?
19 A. It is indeed.
20 Q. That is what you are stating, is it not?
21 A. Yes, I am saying that they were in conversation. It was
22 a one sided conversation and then they said that, giving
23 the go-ahead for the bags to be open.
24 Q. As a result of that one-sided conversation, that is what
25 you state, is it not?
37

1 A. That is what my belief is, yes.
2 Q. I wonder if you could be shown please a copy of the
3 petition.
4 THE COMMISSIONER: Volume 1, page 1.
5 MR COPPEL: Pages 1 to 12.
6 Have you seen this document before?
7 A. No, I have not.
8 THE COMMISSIONER: Page 10, paragraph 18.
9 The Nickleby bag.
10 MR COPPEL: Read that to yourself. (Pause). Have you seen
11 that before?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Do you agree with me that there is no suggestion in
14 there along the lines that you have made in your witness
15 statement and just reiterated in your evidence to this
16 court?
17 A. I am only saying to you what I saw.
18 Q. I want you to look at another court document. It is the
19 schedule of allegation. Page 269 to 274.
20 THE COMMISSIONER: Page 273 to 274?
21 MR COPPEL: Yes, sir.
22 THE COMMISSIONER: These are the paragraphs that were
23 mentioned earlier in your discussion.
24 MR COPPEL: In particular, (ix) to (xiii). Have you read
25 that to yourself, Mr Aziz? (Pause)
38

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Nothing in there, is there?
3 A. No, sir. That is again, I am telling you what I saw.
4 Q. I will spare you the Further and Better Particulars, but
5 take it from me that there is nothing in there along the
6 lines that you have just alleged.
7 A. I beg to differ, sir.
8 THE COMMISSIONER: The point is made, whether and to what
9 extent there is a substantial difference between this
10 gentleman's evidence and the petition is obviously
11 a matter for argument.
12 MR COPPEL: Mr Aziz, what I say to you is that you will not
13 find any mention of what you have put in your witness
14 statement that there was this conversation between two
15 senior officers and Sir Albert Bore, and that
16 immediately thereafter it was decided to accept the
17 ballots. You will not find anything along those lines
18 because you have just made it up.
19 A. No.
20 THE COMMISSIONER: I am not sure that is a fair comment.
21 I would agree that his evidence is not on all fours with
22 the petition, but it is a great deal closer to the
23 petition than I think you are putting to him.
24 MR COPPEL: He can answer it as he wishes, sir.
25 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but I will make sure that you put
39

1 the question to him fairly and I am not prepared to
2 accept that the difference between the petition and the
3 evidence is sufficient for you to suggest on the basis
4 of that alone that this is an entire fabrication.
5 A. The first thing you said to me, sir, was that I did not
6 mention last night, and I thought of the local ballot
7 papers overnight. Now you are accusing me of something
8 else. This is my statement and I stick by -- what I saw
9 I am telling you.
10 MR COPPEL: All right. Were you here for the opening of the
11 case?
12 A. No, sir, I was not.
13 Q. Have you been aware of the allegations which are made in
14 this case by the petitioners against the Returning
15 Officer?
16 A. No, sir.
17 Q. Sir, I do ask Mr Sukul to identify whether in fact this
18 does form a part of the petitioners' case against the
19 Returning Officer, this particular allegation, because
20 if it does we shall deal with it with evidence. If it
21 does not --
22 THE COMMISSIONER: I think it would be wise whatever
23 Mr Sukul says that you deal with it in evidence.
24 MR COPPEL: We will deal with it in any event, but I would
25 like to know nonetheless.
40

1 THE COMMISSIONER: I think my answer to that is that
2 irrespective of what Mr Sukul says one way or the other
3 I would like if dealt with by evidence and that,
4 I think, ought to be sufficient.
5 MR COPPEL: I hear what you say, sir.
6 THE COMMISSIONER: I bear in mind of course that you have
7 put Ms Harding's statement to him. Clearly, the comment
8 may possibly be made, and I simply point this out as
9 something that may be made in the future, although
10 whether it is of any validity I know not, but the point
11 could possibly be made that the account of the event as
12 set out by Ms Harding is, if anything, less satisfactory
13 than the account that is given by this witness as to the
14 way in which the Nickleby bag was dealt with.
15 So I think the Nickleby bag remains (inaudible), if
16 I simply say that.
17 MR COPPEL: Ms Harding is not the only witness for the
18 Returning Officer who deals with the Nickleby bag.
19 THE COMMISSIONER: I appreciate that. I was simply looking
20 at her evidence because you put it to Mr Aziz. Having
21 warned Mr Hayes against it, I would not invite you to
22 embark on any kamikaze conduct.
23 MR COPPEL: Not my style, sir.
24 THE COMMISSIONER: I just thought that I would indicate that
25 it may not be necessarily a complete answer to the
41

1 Nickleby allegation that Ms Harding is right and Mr Aziz
2 is wrong.
3 MR COPPEL: Sir, we have never made it exclusively our case,
4 there are numerous other witnesses who deal with the
5 Nickleby bag and it would be wrong to suggest that it is
6 solely Ms Harding.
7 THE COMMISSIONER: Absolutely correct. As you put that to
8 Mr Aziz, that ought to be borne in mind.
9 MR COPPEL: I am conscious of how long I have spent with
10 Mr Aziz.
11 THE COMMISSIONER: You have put your case to him very fully.
12 MR COPPEL: If you are saying that I need to put the other
13 evidence --
14 THE COMMISSIONER: I am not saying that at all.
15 MR COPPEL: I am grateful for the indication.
16 Can I now turn, Mr Aziz, to the last two sentences
17 of paragraph 4. There you state that about 300 ballot
18 papers were folded in an identical manner, these are the
19 300 ballot papers, I take it, in the Nickleby bag, is
20 that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. They were folded in an identical manner and all had
23 three marks against Labour candidates.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Then you say:
42

1 "There were about 500 to 600 postal votes in total
2 in the count."
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So the difference, that is to say, between the 300 and
5 the 500 to 600 are the 200 to 300 other postal ballots
6 that were put on to the table, you say, right at the
7 outset and slit open. Is that right?
8 A. It is possible, yes.
9 Q. Mr Aziz, I am going to suggest to you that the account
10 that you give in the final sentences of paragraph 4 of
11 the opening of the postal ballots that were contained
12 in the Nickleby bag is incomplete, is it not?
13 A. It is totally complete, sir.
14 Q. It is inaccurate, Mr Aziz?
15 A. It is not inaccurate at all.
16 Q. It is misleading, is it not, Mr Aziz?
17 A. It is not misleading, sir.
18 Q. Let us go through the process then step-by-step for the
19 ballot papers that were in the Nickleby bag. They are
20 poured out on to the table, correct?
21 A. Mm-hm.
22 Q. Is that a yes?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And when the contents are poured out, we see, with the
25 exception of the 7 or so, some 300-odd envelope Bs.
43

1 Correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. The envelope B is opened up, correct?
4 A. Mm-hm.
5 Q. Yes?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And when it is opened up, generally speaking what we
8 find inside is a declaration of identity and an envelope
9 A only; correct?
10 A. Mm-hm.
11 Q. At this stage, you cannot see the ballot. That is
12 correct, is it not?
13 A. That is right, yes.
14 Q. At this stage what next happens is that the elections
15 officers match up the numbers on the declaration of
16 identity with the number appearing on the envelope A,
17 correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. If they match, the declarations of identity are put
20 aside, correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Then next step: envelope A is opened up?
23 A. Mm-hm.
24 Q. The ballot paper is taken out, correct?
25 A. (Witness nods)
44

1 Q. Reverse side up so you can check off the numbers to make
2 sure that it matches with envelope A. Correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. I did not catch that?
5 A. Yes.
6 THE COMMISSIONER: You are having to compete with something
7 with a drill so do keep your voice up.
8 MR COPPEL: Just so that we have it in front of us, it may
9 be very familiar, this is our envelope A, do you see
10 that, Mr Aziz?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. It has the letter A of course and two numbers on it, one
13 for the European ballot and one for the local government
14 ballot?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Inside it we have or should have the two ballot papers,
17 white for European, yellow for local government.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. The number is on the reverse in both cases, is it not?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And what the staff do is open it up with the reverse and
22 they match up the numbers?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You cannot see who they are voting for, can you?
25 A. No.
45

1 Q. That is done one by one and as they match up they, the
2 ballot papers, are placed in the pile, are they not?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. When all of them are done, they are moved down the table
5 to the counting end of the table, correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. That is where the non-postal ballots are as well, is it
8 not?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. They are mixed in, correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And then the people at the counting end of the table
13 start counting the ballot papers by sorting them into
14 piles according to the vote cast, correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now for the first time you can see who has been voted
17 for, can you not?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. But you could not see it before, could you?
20 A. No. If you follow them, you could, yes.
21 Q. By this stage, by the counting stage, there is no way of
22 telling which ballot paper was postal and which ballot
23 paper was non-postal. Correct?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. And there is absolutely no way you can tell which ballot
46

1 papers were delivered to the NIA in the plastic Nickleby
2 bag and which were not, can you?
3 A. If you follow --
4 Q. Is that a yes?
5 A. If you follow the votes coming out you can find out
6 which came out from the Nickleby bag.
7 THE COMMISSIONER: I think there will be another witness who
8 claims to have taken a note of the numbers of the votes
9 in the Nickleby bag.
10 MR COPPEL: There is.
11 THE COMMISSIONER: Perhaps it might be more profitable to
12 deal with that matter with that witness.
13 MR COPPEL: Well, this witness has stated, made a particular
14 statement, it is an important statement and it has to be
15 dealt with.
16 There were, Mr Aziz, a lot of votes cast for all
17 three Labour candidates, were there not?
18 A. Yes. Some of which they probably cast themselves, yes.
19 Q. That was a great disappointment to you, was it not,
20 Mr Aziz?
21 A. It was indeed, yes.
22 Q. That disappointment has overshadowed your whole
23 recollection of the 11th June, has it not?
24 A. No, sir, in 2003 Councillor Yukon(?) won that seat with
25 a majority of 600. As far as we were concerned we had
47

1 absolute response from the electorate and it was
2 a foregone conclusion that the Aston seat was Liberal
3 Democrat as far as we were concerned. We did not have
4 to resort to anything other than -- the only people to
5 benefit from this kind of thing is the Labour
6 candidates, not Liberal Democrats.
7 Q. Mr Aziz, we understand you. To lose when you know you
8 are going to lose is bad, to lose when you think you are
9 going to win is yet worse, is it not?
10 A. As far as the response from the electorate was that they
11 will not vote Labour.
12 THE COMMISSIONER: I think it is probably fair to say that
13 Mr Aziz, rightly or wrongly -- and I will have to decide
14 which -- will say it is worse still to lose because the
15 other side cheat. Whether he is right or wrong, that is
16 clearly his statement, his view of the matter.
17 MR COPPEL: Sir, that is the issue between the petitioners
18 and the respondents.
19 THE COMMISSIONER: Given his views, which are right or
20 wrong, but his views are not those simply of
21 disappointment, it is disappointment combined with
22 a belief, which may be wholly false, but a belief
23 nonetheless that the other side obtained the election by
24 fraud.
25 MR COPPEL: We do not take issue with their disgruntlement,
48

1 but what we do say is that that infected their whole
2 view of what took place on the 11th and that that
3 rendered their recollection of what took place on the
4 11th somewhat difficult to take at face value.
5 THE COMMISSIONER: You put that point yesterday.
6 MR COPPEL: No further questions. Thank you.
7 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Hayes I think has documents on which
8 he wishes to question you.
9 Cross-examination by MR HAYES
10 MR HAYES: Mr Aziz, we are going to leave the count and go
11 back to the postal balloting. You in fact are a very
12 experienced politician, are you not?
13 A. No sir, I am not a politician at all.
14 Q. Did you not stand for the election on three occasions?
15 A. I am just an ordinary person who understands the
16 problems of the ordinary people. That is why I have
17 stood in the elections. I am not a politician at all.
18 If you ask any of the electors in Aston they will tell
19 you --
20 Q. I really did not mean it as an insult. Although in
21 these proceedings it is not a compliment. You were
22 a member of the Labour Party at one time, for
23 Handsworth, were you not?
24 A. I was a member of the Labour.
25 Q. And you wanted to stand for the Handsworth ward and they
49

1 said no for one reason or the other?
2 A. I was not interested.
3 Q. And then you became an independent candidate, did you
4 not?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. And then you joined the People's Justice Party?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. And then you have moved naturally into the Liberal
9 Democrats?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. Right. So you know all about elections?
12 A. I do, yes.
13 Q. And you know a fair amount about postal ballots?
14 A. I do, yes.
15 Q. You know the rules, what you can do and what you cannot
16 do?
17 A. That is right.
18 Q. What can you not do? Sorry, we will be here all day.
19 THE COMMISSIONER: If you would like a list, Mr Hayes ...
20 What this witness's cross-examination is being re-opened
21 as to is a series of documents, which may or may not
22 have some participation by this witness. Can we take it
23 through?
24 MR HAYES: Yes. So that it is clear to everybody, I am sure
25 it will be, but the first piece of paper is -- there is
50

1 a signature of the voter. Can you see that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And then there is the signature of the witness, which is
4 you.
5 THE COMMISSIONER: Now, that is the first question to ask.
6 MR HAYES: I will get there, may I do it in my own clumsy
7 way? I will try and be helpful.
8 The signature of witness, which I am assuming to be
9 you, and the name of the witness, which is you.
10 Firstly, the signature of the voter. You witnessed
11 that, did you?
12 THE COMMISSIONER: I still think you are not doing this in
13 a fair way. The fair way is to take this witness
14 through these declarations of identity and ask him
15 whether that is his signature or not. If he says yes,
16 you can then go further in that line. If he says no,
17 you may go further in another line, but I think we have
18 to start with the documents and say: are these his
19 signature or has somebody forged it?
20 MR HAYES: I am entirely in your hands, sir.
21 The first signature, whose is that?
22 THE COMMISSIONER: For the record, this is ballot paper
23 004397. It says name of witness: Abdul Aziz, 33 The
24 Broadway. Is that your signature?
25 A. Yes, it is.
51

1 THE COMMISSIONER: Could you turn over two pages, please, to
2 ballot paper number 02199, that again contains A Aziz,
3 33 The Broadway. Is that your signature?
4 A. It looks like it.
5 THE COMMISSIONER: Could you turn over two more pages to
6 ballot number 002530, that again says A Aziz, 33 The
7 Broadway. Is that your signature?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. And two more pages, please.
10 We have ballot paper 004730, again your name appears and
11 address. Is that your signature?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. If you would turn over two
14 more pages we then get declaration of identity for
15 ballot 004852. Is that your signature?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 THE COMMISSIONER: The next one, two pages on, is 002198.
18 Is that your signature?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 THE COMMISSIONER: And finally there is 002532. Is that
21 your signature?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, we have a straight yes for all
24 those, Mr Hayes.
25 MR HAYES: Greatly obliged.
52

1 THE COMMISSIONER: You may cross-examine on those answers.
2 MR HAYES: I am obliged.
3 Could you turn to the second page, please. This is
4 the application to vote by post.
5 MR SUKUL: Sir, I really would not want to disturb my
6 learned friend. This witness has no capability of
7 dealing with that document.
8 MR HAYES: I am not quite sure what my learned friend says.
9 MR SUKUL: He knows nothing of that document.
10 MR HAYES: Well, we do not know. I am going to ask him
11 about it.
12 THE COMMISSIONER: That seems to me the way to do it.
13 MR HAYES: Yes. And if he does not know anything about it,
14 that is as far as I can go.
15 THE COMMISSIONER: Could you look at 2. 2 is an application
16 to vote by post in the name of Aftab Noor(?). Have you
17 seen that document before?
18 A. No sir.
19 THE COMMISSIONER: Is there any part of it in your writing,
20 as far as you can see?
21 A. No sir.
22 MR HAYES: We move on to the next one. Mr Boston(?). Have
23 you seen that document before?
24 A. No sir.
25 Q. Is there any part of that document written by you?
53

1 A. No sir.
2 Q. Signature?
3 A. No sir.
4 Q. Let us move on.
5 THE COMMISSIONER: Two pages, is that?
6 MR HAYES: That is right, a Mr Salman Begum.
7 A. No, I have not seen that.
8 Q. Have not signed it?
9 A. No.
10 Q. We move on to Arfana Kauser.
11 THE COMMISSIONER: Have you seen that document before?
12 A. No.
13 MR HAYES: Have you signed it or written on it in any way?
14 A. (Inaudible) signed it.
15 Q. That is what I am asking you for a specific purpose.
16 Then Mr Safeer.
17 THE COMMISSIONER: Possibly Ms.
18 MR HAYES: Have you seen this document before?
19 A. No, I have not.
20 Q. Have you written anything on it or signed it?
21 A. No.
22 THE COMMISSIONER: Then Nazar Begum. Have you seen this
23 document before?
24 A. No, I have not.
25 MR HAYES: Have you signed this document?
54

1 A. No.
2 THE COMMISSIONER: Written?
3 A. No.
4 THE COMMISSIONER: The last document.
5 MR HAYES: Hussain, Mr. Have you seen this document before?
6 A. No sir.
7 Q. And have you written on it or signed it?
8 A. No.
9 Q. In relation to all those documents, are you sure?
10 A. Positive.
11 MR HAYES: I am obliged.
12 THE COMMISSIONER: I think I shall ask the question that
13 Mr Hayes has not asked.
14 When you signed these declarations of identity,
15 which we have gone through and you say that you have
16 signed, did you actually witness the voter to whom that
17 declaration of identity was issued?
18 A. Yes sir.
19 MR HAYES: I am obliged.
20 THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Any re-examination, Mr Sukul?
21 MR SUKUL: Sir, no. None at all.
22 THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you very much.
23 Thank you, you are released and you are free to go.
24 Can I ask for information? Did Mr Hemming produce
25 the documents that were going to be produced?
55

1 MR COPPEL: Yes he did, yesterday sir.
2 THE COMMISSIONER: He was going to produce some this
3 morning.
4 MR COPPEL: As I understand it, what was given to me
5 constitutes everything that was to be given.
6 THE COMMISSIONER: Did you get the e-mail?
7 MR COPPEL: Yes.
8 THE COMMISSIONER: I will say no more.
9 Who is your next witness, Mr Sukul?
10 MR SUKUL: Sir, it is number two on the witness list,
11 a Mr Naim Ahmed, 309 on the witness bundle.
12 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Hayes, I should have asked: do you
13 wish to pursue your chambers application before any
14 witnesses are called?
15 MR HAYES: It might be helpful, sir. If it is convenient to
16 the court because the court may need a break.
17 THE COMMISSIONER: Shall we take our mid-morning break
18 early, as we sat shortly after ten, and I will give you,
19 as it were, ten minutes to break and then five minutes
20 for the shorthand writer to get his kit up to my room,
21 because clearly if you are going to make an application
22 we have to have a record of it, even if it does not form
23 part of the public transcript.
24 (11.40 am)
25 (A short break)
56

1 (Matter heard in Chambers)
2 (12.15 pm)
3 MR COPPEL: Before Mr Sukul calls his next witness, two
4 very, very short points.
5 First of all, when I was cross-examining Mr Aziz,
6 Mr Sukul said to the court that he had not seen any
7 express denial of the allegations that the petitioners
8 made that there were loose yellow papers in the
9 Nickelby's bag. You, sir, said I would give chapter and
10 verse. I do give chapter and verse. It is paragraph 7
11 of Alison Harding's statement. It is the penultimate
12 sentence:
13 "Contrary to allegations made by Mr Abdul Aziz in
14 paragraph 3 of his statement, there were no bundles of
15 local election papers without envelopes in the bag."
16 That is point 1.
17 Point 2. Sir, noon has come and gone. You made
18 an order yesterday that the petitioners advise us which
19 of our witnesses they require for cross-examination.
20 I do not have it.
21 MR SUKUL: The list is available. I was just waiting for
22 the right moment to give it to my learned friend.
23 THE COMMISSIONER: Be sure that he has it by the time we
24 return at 2.
25 Mr Naim Ahmed, is the gentleman in court?
57

1 MR NAIM AHMED (affirmed)
2 Examination-in-chief by MR SUKUL
3 MR SUKUL: Page 309, sir.
4 Mr Ahmed, your name is Naim Ahmed, is that right?
5 A. Yes.
6 THE COMMISSIONER: Could volume 2 please be produced for
7 this witness, page 309.
8 MR SUKUL: Mr Ahmed, can you just look at page 311, please.
9 Is that your signature there?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And is that your witness statement?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. I will just read it:
14 "I Naim Ahmed also known as Saeed of 91 Bevington
15 Road, Aston, Birmingham, make the statement and say as
16 follows:
17 "This witness statement contains information which
18 is within my own knowledge save where it is stated
19 otherwise, in which case it is true to the best of my
20 information and belief.
21 "I was one of the Liberal Democrat candidates at the
22 local elections in June 2004 held in the Aston ward.
23 During the course of the election, I heard that the
24 Labour Party candidates and agents were pressurising the
25 local people into handing over their postal votes.
58

1 "On the last week of the election I was dropping
2 focus leaflets in the area when I was approached by
3 a lady in Frederick Road, Aston. She sounded distressed
4 and told me that the Labour candidates and in particular
5 Mr Nazrul Islam and his activists were pressurising her
6 and many other people to hand over their ballot papers
7 when they arrived by post.
8 "She stated, whilst crying, that she had been forced
9 to put up Labour posters in her window. She further
10 stated that while she normally voted for Labour, she
11 would not be voting for them this time because of the
12 war. I stated to her that if she was being harassed and
13 pressurised then I would report it to the police and
14 that everybody has the right to vote for whom they
15 choose.
16 "I told her that no-one could take her vote but she
17 said that this year they were going to take people's
18 votes. I then later spoke to the other two Liberal
19 Democrat candidates about this particular incident.
20 I telephoned Queen's Road Police Station and made an
21 appointment with the Community Sergeant, Kim Barton.
22 Myself and the other two Liberal Democrat candidates
23 attended this appointment.
24 "We informed the officer of the incident and also of
25 other complaints of individuals who had been threatened,
59

1 intimidated and bribed. On the election day I received
2 a telephone call from a Mrs Mir, an appointed polling
3 agent on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and she stated
4 that she was not allowed to sit in the Broadway School
5 polling station on Whitehead Road.
6 "I attended and spoke to the two officials in charge
7 and they stated they would not allow Mrs Mir to sit in
8 as a polling agent until someone from the election
9 office attended. The officials were not sure how long
10 this would take. I left to attend other polling
11 stations and approximately three hours later I was told
12 again by Mrs Mir by telephone that someone called the
13 police and again Mrs Mir was told to leave the polling
14 station.
15 "I again attended and spoke to the official. I was
16 told that someone from the election office would be
17 required to allow Mrs Mir back into the polling station.
18 Mrs Mir then waited outside again. I am not aware of
19 what happened thereafter as I went to the other polling
20 stations.
21 "On the date of count, Friday 11th June 2004,
22 I attended the National Indoor Arena at approximately
23 9 am and I saw a Nickleby's large suit bag, the bag was
24 full of postal votes and on the top side of the bag
25 there was a large number of European white coloured
60

1 ballot papers with an elastic band wrapped around them.
2 "I was shocked to see them and was confused as to
3 why they were in a bag and not a ballot box or official
4 council box. I spoke to Ayoub Khan about this and we
5 raised it with a young lady behind the counting tables.
6 She told us she was the Deputy Returning Officer and in
7 charge of the Aston ward count. I enquired where and
8 why the bag was there and she told us she was not sure
9 where the bag had come from.
10 "She stated that the bag had arrived on the count
11 day but could not offer any other explanation. Ayoub
12 Khan told this Deputy Returning Officer that the bag
13 arrived at the count today and it should not be counted
14 as the poll closed 10 pm on Thursday 10th June 2004.
15 She stated that she agreed and would speak to the chief
16 legal officer. I then saw the chief legal officer
17 arrive and talk to Ayoub Khan. Ayoub Khan then came to
18 me and told me that the chief legal officer stated that
19 because the bag arrived this morning, on the count day,
20 it was not to be counted.
21 "In the meantime I could see that the chief legal
22 officer was surrounded by Sir Albert Bore, the leader of
23 the Birmingham City Council and the Labour group and
24 Mohammed Afzal, a Labour candidate for the Aston ward.
25 Moments later the chief legal officer returned and
61

1 stated that he had changed his mind and was going to
2 allow these votes to be counted.
3 "The counting staff removed the European white
4 coloured ballot papers and placed them on a separate
5 table. I could see they were blank. The staff then
6 commenced with the count of the postal votes within the
7 Nickleby's bag. When the envelopes had been taken out
8 of the Nickelby's bag, I could see that many of the
9 envelopes B were unsealed and almost the entire smaller
10 envelope As were unsealed.
11 "There were no European ballot papers inside and all
12 the ballot papers which were taken out were folded
13 in the same manner and all were marked in favour of
14 Labour candidates.
15 "I heard our agents, who were noting down the
16 numbers, saying that the ballot paper numbers were not
17 matching with the numbers printed on the envelope As.
18 No official record was kept of how many were in the bag
19 and they were all then mixed into the count. At some
20 time late in the count I was present when Ayoub Khan had
21 a discussion with John Owen, the Returning Officer.
22 "Ayoub asked about the Nickleby's bag and John Owen
23 specifically stated that he had personally seen that bag
24 last night and it was brought in from a polling station.
25 When Ayoub asked which polling station John said that he
62

1 did not know and simply walked away.
2 "I believe the elections were unfair and were not
3 a true reflection of how the people in Aston voted.
4 "I believe the facts stated in this witness
5 statement are true."
6 It is dated 18th January 2005. Please wait there.
7 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Hayes?
8 Cross-examination by MR HAYES
9 MR HAYES: Mr Ahmed, you are a devout Muslim, are you not?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You are a trustee of the mosque on Albert Road, are you
12 not?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Why did you not swear on the Koran, why did you affirm?
15 A. I made my choice.
16 Q. But why?
17 A. Because the Koran is for reading, it is not for
18 swearing.
19 Q. Can I just take instructions. (Pause)
20 Is it not right that under the teachings of Islam,
21 if you touch the Koran and lie it is considered to be
22 a very serious offence indeed?
23 A. Without touching the Koran you have to tell the truth.
24 Q. But we have the Koran in court, it is normal practice
25 for people to swear. Why do you choose not to do so?
63

1 A. (Pause)
2 Q. Why?
3 A. I made my choice to affirm.
4 Q. Is it because you know you will not be truthful to this
5 court?
6 A. No, that is not true.
7 Q. And you still wish to affirm as opposed, as is very
8 often the usual practice for practising Muslims, to
9 swear on the Koran?
10 A. I made my choice.
11 Q. So be it. You were a member of the Labour Party for
12 nearly 20 years, were you not?
13 A. That is right.
14 Q. And there was a major falling out between you and them,
15 was there not?
16 A. There was.
17 Q. Well, you were sacked from the Labour Party?
18 A. No, that is not true.
19 Q. Let me read you -- I will read it in full if I may, to
20 be fair, because it would be quite unfair if --
21 THE COMMISSIONER: Do you have a copy to show the witness?
22 MR HAYES: Yes. It is in the bundles which the clerk should
23 have.
24 For the record, I will read this out.
25 THE COMMISSIONER: I think the record had better say what
64

1 this is a clipping from and its date.
2 MR HAYES: I have not got a date and I will ask the witness
3 about this, because he comments in this newspaper.
4 Is this a clipping from a Birmingham newspaper?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do you know what newspaper it would be? Is it the
7 Evening News?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Because it is written by Neil Elkes and David Bell.
10 Would this be around about 2002?
11 A. Yes. That is right.
12 Q. The heading is:
13 "Labour Ditch Candidate in Council Grants" --
14 I imagine that is "Probe".
15 "I have nothing to hide" is a quote from you.
16 There is a picture of you and it says this:
17 "Candidate at the centre of the local election
18 furore today claimed he was the victim of racism and
19 false allegations. Naim Ahmed is the subject of an
20 official investigation into disability grants given to
21 his family. A council spokesman said that £7,000 was
22 handed over for a recently completed extension to the
23 Aston candidate's Bevington Road home. A lack of
24 satisfactory answers to allegations about receipt
25 repeated claims for disability grants led regional
65

1 Labour Party bosses to sack him as their candidate only
2 five minutes before nominations closed for the inner
3 city seat.
4 "Defiant Mr Ahmed, better known as Saeed, is
5 refusing to stand down and allow sitting councillor Tony
6 Kennedy to take his place. He strongly denies he or
7 members of his family are falsely claiming disability
8 grants, but flatly refuses to go into details.
9 Referring to the allegation, Mr Ahmed, aged 46, told the
10 Evening Mail, 'There are no skeletons in my cupboard and
11 there are no false disability claims made in my house'.
12 Mr Ahmed, who is unemployed because of ill health, said
13 he was not prepared to reveal details of his and his
14 family's disability claims in public but would defend
15 himself in court or before a party investigation.
16 "The married father of four said, 'I was
17 democratically selected as the Labour Party candidate
18 for Aston and will be proud to fight this election for
19 the party. If I win, I will sit with the Labour group'.
20 "He is now taking legal action to have Councillor
21 Kennedy, listed as Official Labour Party Candidate,
22 removed from the ballot paper because the title is not
23 a registered political party. 'There are officials at
24 the regional level who do not want an Asian candidate
25 and did not like the local party choosing me over Tony
66

1 Kennedy. They put him forward five minutes before the
2 deadline so I could not complain, yet they had to get
3 the support of ten voters to fill in the forms so they
4 must have planned this much earlier'.
5 "Mr Ahmed added 'They could damage my vote and
6 reputation, which is why my solicitor is asking the
7 Returning Officer to remove him from the ballot paper'.
8 City leader Sir Albert Bore confirmed that a council
9 investigation into the grants was underway."
10 So the headline at the top, Mr Ahmed, "Labour Ditch
11 Candidate in Council Grants Probe", is that right or
12 is that wrong?
13 A. Sir, can you explain again?
14 Q. They are saying, the newspaper -- as we know newspapers
15 do not often get it right. They say that you were
16 ditched as a candidate in the Aston ward by the
17 Labour Party. Is that true? Is it true?
18 A. Can you explain to me again, please?
19 THE COMMISSIONER: What the article says is that shortly
20 before nominations closed in 2002, the Labour Party
21 removed you as a candidate and substituted a Mr Kennedy
22 as the candidate.
23 A. Yes.
24 THE COMMISSIONER: And therefore they sacked you as their
25 candidate. That is what is being said and what Mr Hayes
67

1 has asked you; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR HAYES: And in fact there was a High Court action, was
4 there not?
5 A. I (indistinct) in the High Court.
6 Q. And what happened as a result of all that?
7 A. The Labour Party stopped me on every occasion not to go
8 ahead. They challenged the statement (?) made by my
9 solicitor. Then I went to the Court of Appeal in the
10 High Court and the Labour Party legal representative was
11 saying, challenging the High Court judge that, "You have
12 no power to make any procedure."
13 Q. But in the end who won?
14 A. In the end?
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. I was the one who won.
17 THE COMMISSIONER: You stood on the ballot in 2002? Is that
18 right?
19 A. Yes.
20 THE COMMISSIONER: And we have seen the results. You
21 received 31.53 per cent of the poll and came second and
22 Mr Kennedy got 42.68 per cent of the poll and was
23 elected.
24 A. Yes.
25 THE COMMISSIONER: Did you describe yourself as a Labour
68

1 candidate?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR HAYES: So that we are totally clear, what was this
4 High Court action about? When you went up to London to
5 the High Court, you were saying something. What very
6 shortly was your -- not the whole file.
7 A. Can I give you the election petition?
8 MR HAYES: That is what I wanted to ask you.
9 A. I went to the election petition.
10 MR HAYES: I have just been handed this, sir. It might be
11 helpful if it is photocopied for the benefit of the
12 court.
13 THE COMMISSIONER: I am not anxious to cramp your style
14 too much, Mr Hayes, but this is cross-examination as to
15 credit, is it not?
16 MR HAYES: Yes. There is an election petition here, is
17 there not, filed in the High Court in May 2002, it is an
18 election petition and you are the petitioner and Anthony
19 Paul Kennedy, the man who beat you at the election, is
20 the respondent along with Stuart Dobson. Who is Stuart
21 Dobson?
22 A. He was the Acting Returning Officer.
23 Q. What you are claiming is this: that before or during the
24 said election, this is the election you have been
25 telling us about, and for the purpose of affecting the
69

1 return of the petitioner and/or the aforesaid Anthony
2 Paul Kennedy at the election, false statements of fact
3 were made or published in relation to the petitioner's
4 personal character or conduct.
5 And it goes on -- I will not go into details but
6 this petition was struck out, was it not?
7 A. Because of the technical mistake by my solicitor.
8 Because my solicitor has been served all the relevant
9 papers and forget to serve the copy of the £2,500 which
10 I am paying in the High Court for the election petition.
11 This is the only receipt that the Labour Party
12 representative has been challenging in the High Court.
13 Q. I am not going to go into depth on this but this is
14 quite a weighty petition where serious allegations are
15 made about the sitting councillor who defeated you at an
16 election, and the High Court struck it out. That was
17 the end of the matter?
18 A. No.
19 Q. You did not win, did you?
20 A. But the full hearing did not take place.
21 Q. So what you told us a moment ago you that you won, that
22 was not true, was it?
23 A. No, I was saying that the full hearing has not taken
24 place.
25 Q. But it has finished.
70

1 A. Because the case was they were challenging the case, not
2 against my statement, they were challenging to stop the
3 court case going any further.
4 Q. But this is 2002. It is over, it has gone, it cannot be
5 resurrected, can it?
6 A. But, sir, you are the one who brings this in here today
7 and this is the moment I was waiting for here today,
8 that everyone can hear what are the false allegations,
9 serious allegations that were made against me. This is
10 the reason I am here to tell everybody and tell all the
11 press.
12 Q. Please, please, the reason you are here is for the
13 Commissioner.
14 THE COMMISSIONER: I am loath to re-litigate the offence of
15 2002, Mr Hayes. Those of 2004 are troublesome enough.
16 MR HAYES: Sir, I do not intend to do so. The point I am
17 putting to the witness is, I specifically asked him who
18 won and he said it was him. I am putting it to him that
19 that is a lie.
20 Is it a lie or is it not, yes or no? I am sorry to
21 ask it in such a lawyerly way but it is an answer that
22 can be given yes or no.
23 A. The Labour Party was lying against me.
24 THE COMMISSIONER: I think he may regard himself as having
25 scored a moral victory though a technical knockout.
71

1 MR HAYES: Let me put it like this, he came second.
2 THE COMMISSIONER: I do not think that place money is played
3 on this event. He came second, fine. We can see that.
4 I think you have made your point, which is: there is
5 clearly no love lost between this witness and the
6 current Labour Party in Aston.
7 MR HAYES: Yes.
8 THE COMMISSIONER: That point is made and well made.
9 MR HAYES: I am gratefully obliged.
10 Let us go through your statement:
11 "3. During the course of the election I heard that
12 the Labour Party candidates and activists were
13 pressurising the local people into handing over their
14 postal votes."
15 Pause there, who told you this?
16 A. The community. The people on the street.
17 Q. No, the community is massive and it does not speak as
18 a body. A person or persons must have told you this.
19 Who are they?
20 A. I let (sic) everything to Queen's Road Police Station.
21 Q. Can you tell us?
22 A. This is the risk of their life and this is the reason
23 I made a point at Queen's Road Police Station and let
24 them hear --
25 Q. So the answer to my question is no?
72

1 A. No, that is not true.
2 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Ahmed, what Mr Hayes is asking you is
3 this: can you tell us which people were informing you
4 that Labour Party candidates and activists were
5 pressurising local people into handing over their ballot
6 papers.
7 A. From the Bangladeshi community.
8 THE COMMISSIONER: Can you actually say who these people
9 were who told you these things?
10 A. The people on the streets.
11 THE COMMISSIONER: Can you name names? That is, I think,
12 what Mr Hayes is asking.
13 MR HAYES: Yes.
14 A. Some of the people I know the name and some I do not
15 know the name.
16 THE COMMISSIONER: Are you saying that you reported these
17 complaints to the police?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR HAYES: I will deal with that in a minute if I may:
20 "On the last week of the election I was dropping
21 focus leaflets in the area and I was approached by
22 a lady on Frederick Road in Aston. She sounded
23 distressed and told me that the Labour candidates and in
24 particular Mr Nazrul Islam, who is the first respondent
25 whom I represent, and his activists were pressurising
73

1 her and many other people to hand over their ballot
2 papers when they arrived by post."
3 This obviously, you would accept, is a very serious
4 allegation to make, is it not, Mr Ahmed?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Well, can you tell us the name of this individual who
7 has made this very serious allegation against the first
8 respondent; can you?
9 A. I did not remember the name but I did at that time,
10 I did tell the Queen's Road police the name and address
11 of the complainant.
12 Q. So you told the police?
13 A. I told the police.
14 THE COMMISSIONER: Can you remember it now? Can you
15 remember the name and address now apart from Frederick
16 Road?
17 A. I think ...
18 THE COMMISSIONER: Do not say what you think. If you cannot
19 remember you cannot remember. If there are police
20 records no doubt they can be looked at.
21 MR HAYES: So you reported this to the police.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. From your knowledge -- and you may not be help to help
24 us here, and if you cannot, please say so. Are any of
25 these people coming to this court to give evidence?
74

1 A. I do not know.
2 Q. You reported them, so you say, to the police. What
3 action did the police take?
4 A. The police have made their enquiry.
5 Q. And were arrests made?
6 A. I do not know.
7 Q. Were people charged?
8 A. I do not know.
9 Q. But you would have found out, would you not?
10 A. I do not know.
11 Q. You are making a serious allegation to the police.
12 A. This is the police job.
13 Q. Yes, yes, but you would want to find out, would you not,
14 what they found out?
15 A. I do not know.
16 Q. No?
17 A. I do not know.
18 Q. Are you sure that this was not just one of the many
19 phone calls that the Liberal Democrats made to the
20 police, and there were many, were there not? There were
21 many complaints by the Liberal Democrats to the police?
22 A. I do not know.
23 Q. Well, you made at least two, did you not?
24 A. One.
25 Q. We know that Mr Hemming has made, well, probably 50 and
75

1 that is on his count?
2 A. I do not know.
3 Q. And we heard from Mr Hemming yesterday that certainly,
4 and he disagrees with this, but the police's view, on
5 the complaints he made, the police said they were false.
6 A. Can you find out if my complaint was false or was the
7 serious complaint?
8 Q. We will check this through. In fact the police named
9 the operation as a result of the number of Liberal
10 Democrat calls "Operation Gripe", did they not?
11 A. No.
12 Q. They did not, are you saying, or you do not know?
13 A. Can you explain?
14 Q. The answer is they did.
15 A. No, can you explain me the question, please.
16 Q. I am sorry, I will put it more clearly.
17 A. I am not a solicitor or barrister sitting here.
18 Q. I am probably putting it not clearly.
19 THE COMMISSIONER: Police have a fancy to name operations to
20 denote the name of the operation. They seem in this
21 case to have put all the complaints they were receiving
22 in respect of, certainly, the Aston ward under a general
23 heading of "Operation Gripe". Were you aware of that?
24 A. Can you explain?
25 THE COMMISSIONER: Were you aware the police were calling
76

1 all these complaints Operation Gripe or were you not
2 aware?
3 A. I was not aware.
4 THE COMMISSIONER: I am not wholly certain that, if true,
5 that reflects a great deal of credit on those who named
6 the operation.
7 MR HAYES: I am sure it was out of affection for all the
8 calls they were getting.
9 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Hayes, I would have to hear you
10 further on that.
11 MR HAYES: I am not going to push my luck.
12 You go on a little bit further:
13 "She stated, whilst crying, that she had been forced
14 to put up Labour posters in her window. She further
15 stated that while she normally voted for Labour she
16 would not be voting for them this time because of the
17 war. I stated to her if she is being harassed and
18 pressurised I would report it to the police and that
19 everybody has the right to vote for whom they choose.
20 I told her that no-one could take her vote but she said
21 that this year they were going to take people's votes."
22 To "take people's votes" you understood to be what?
23 A. The postal vote.
24 Q. To steal them?
25 A. The postal vote.
77

1 Q. To steal their postal votes? That is what you are
2 alleging, what you are saying, that this woman in tears
3 told you that the wicked Labour people came and were
4 going to steal their postal votes? That is the essence
5 of it, is it not? Are you still telling the court that
6 after even those serious allegations, which were made to
7 you, you did not check with the police and enquire what
8 progress they had made?
9 A. Well, you see the progress on the warehouse that night.
10 Q. I am not quite sure. The progress on the warehouse?
11 A. That is where the votes were stolen. That is where the
12 voting was stolen by the community.
13 Q. But there were no arrests, there were no charges on the
14 warehouse.
15 A. That is the police job.
16 Q. There was a finding of no wrongdoing by Mr Owen. We
17 heard about this yesterday.
18 A. That is up to the police.
19 THE COMMISSIONER: I think we also heard that Mr Owen says
20 quite carefully that any finding of wrongdoing was on
21 the basis of facts somewhat different from that related
22 by the witnesses.
23 MR HAYES: At the end of the day, sir, you are the sole
24 arbiter.
25 THE COMMISSIONER: I think it is fair to say that Mr Owen
78

1 may not have been fully apprised of the facts when he
2 made such decision that he made.
3 MR HAYES: That is a fair point and it is fair to say as
4 well, as you recall, that the police did have access to
5 qualified people so they could make a judgment --
6 THE COMMISSIONER: That is undoubtedly true.
7 MR HAYES: It was a dirty election, was it not, Mr Ahmed?
8 A. Yes, it was.
9 Q. Have a look at the poster here. Have you seen that
10 before?
11 A. I have seen it yesterday in here.
12 Q. You heard the evidence, did you not?
13 A. Yes. I heard it yesterday.
14 Q. Did you see this poster during the election?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Did you see Liberal Democrats put them through --
17 A. No.
18 Q. What about -- it is on a separate piece of paper.
19 THE COMMISSIONER: Is this the one with the picture of
20 Ms Claire Short?
21 MR HAYES: You have seen that one before, have you not?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And no doubt you put that through people's doors?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did you think that was a particularly honourable thing
79

1 to do?
2 A. This was the right thing to let people know -- yes, this
3 was the cutting from the press -- what is going on on
4 the ward.
5 Q. Well, I am saying to you that I can really understand
6 why you do not like the Labour Party; to be hounded by
7 the press is an appalling thing to happen whether the
8 facts are right or the facts are wrong. It is an
9 unpleasant experience for you and your family but I can
10 understand as well, Mr Ahmed, that you do feel that
11 somehow you wanted to get your own back, did you not?
12 A. Sorry?
13 Q. That you wanted retribution, like what you said to us
14 today.
15 THE COMMISSIONER: What he suggests is that you are taking
16 revenge on the Labour Party by telling untruths.
17 A. No, that is not true.
18 MR HAYES: I am suggesting that what you have said in your
19 statement, what you have told this court, not on oath,
20 are lies.
21 A. No. As a Muslim and respectable person I am telling the
22 truth and the Labour Party made false allegations
23 against me.
24 MR HAYES: But as a Muslim you chose to affirm?
25 A. Yes.
80

1 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr De Mello, any questions for this
2 gentleman?
3 MR DE MELLO: I do not.
4 MR BROOK: No questions.
5 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Coppel?
6 Cross-examination by MR COPPEL
7 MR COPPEL: I do.
8 THE COMMISSIONER: I have no wish to inhibit your
9 cross-examination in any way but I think you may take
10 the Mrs Mir incident with a fairly light touch, because
11 I have yet to be convinced as to whether Mrs Mir was
12 rightly or wrongly excluded from this polling station.
13 It is a nice and interesting academic question, but
14 I have yet to be convinced how it could possibly have
15 affected the result of the election.
16 MR COPPEL: Sir, I hear what you say, and if I may take that
17 indication not to pursue cross-examination of this
18 witness in relation to Mrs Mir, that should not be taken
19 in any way as the Returning Officer accepting what this
20 witness has said in relation to --
21 THE COMMISSIONER: I would not, as it were, hold you to
22 that, but it does seem to me that this is a very
23 unprofitable area to explore and I put that down as
24 a marker not simply for you, Mr Coppel, but for others.
25 MR COPPEL: I am grateful.
81

1 THE COMMISSIONER: The Nickleby's bag is something that
2 you have to explore obviously.
3 MR COPPEL: Can we turn, Mr Ahmed, straightaway to that
4 plastic bag. The Nickleby's bag, you say you saw it
5 first at approximately 9 am on the day of the count,
6 11th June.
7 A. That is right.
8 Q. Whereabouts in the count room was it?
9 A. The Nickleby's bag was on the corner.
10 THE COMMISSIONER: On the corner of the table or on the
11 floor?
12 A. The corner beside the table on the floor.
13 THE COMMISSIONER: Beside the table on the floor at the
14 corner.
15 MR COPPEL: I wonder if you could be shown a plan of the
16 National Indoor Arena. In fact there is a copy in front
17 of you.
18 It is the plan that you see there. Take your time
19 to familiarise with it. You will see there are eight
20 letters, A to H, and I want you to take it from me that
21 the Aston papers were opened and counted in what we call
22 the pen, lettered E. Do you see that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you see on that plan that it shows four long made up
25 tables going from left to right. Look at the plan.
82

1 Do you see the four tables shown on the plan?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And do you see a fifth table at right angles to those
4 four tables?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. I will try again. I want you to see this properly,
7 Mr Ahmed. Look at the plan.
8 THE COMMISSIONER: You have four tables running across the
9 room. You have a fifth table, which is the other way
10 along, running from side to side in the room.
11 Do you follow?
12 A. Yes.
13 THE COMMISSIONER: That is what Mr Coppel is talking about.
14 MR COPPEL: Does that plan accurately describe the room on
15 the day of the count, 11th June?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And do you remember that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. On the plan, which was the Aston table?
20 A. If you come in from the first door.
21 Q. The first door is the door at the bottom of the sheet or
22 higher up on the sheet?
23 A. Outside, if you come in from the outside.
24 Q. So that is the entrance --
25 A. You are coming in, if you come in ...
83

1 Q. Do you see on the plan the word "exit"?
2 THE COMMISSIONER: Are you referring to the one to the right
3 of D and E?
4 MR COPPEL: Yes.
5 THE COMMISSIONER: You see it there? There is the word
6 "exit". The little arrow is going up and down.
7 MR COPPEL: There is an entrance next to the word "exit",
8 is there not, into E? Is that the entrance you are
9 talking about or is there one lower down?
10 A. I think it was ... When I was coming in, there was at
11 the right-hand side -- counting table was Sparkbrook.
12 Q. Let me try again.
13 A. Sparkbrook counting table was there.
14 Q. Let us go back to basics.
15 THE COMMISSIONER: Which table was the Nickleby's bag near?
16 A. The first one, when I come in.
17 THE COMMISSIONER: Is that the one you have described as the
18 Sparkbrook table?
19 A. No. There was ...
20 THE COMMISSIONER: We have the table running across the top,
21 we have the four tables running down this room.
22 Which of those five tables is the one that you say the
23 bag was next to?
24 A. That was the first table.
25 THE COMMISSIONER: You mean the first table running down on
84

1 the right-hand side?
2 A. Yes.
3 THE COMMISSIONER: So the one running from top to bottom
4 on the right-hand side seems to be what he is saying,
5 Mr Coppel.
6 MR COPPEL: In the room marked E on the plan, the room that
7 you went to on 11th June, there was one table for each
8 of the five wards which were being opened and counted on
9 that day. That is correct, is it not?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. On the Aston table there were staff who were opening up
12 the envelopes and there were other staff who were
13 counting the ballot papers that were either inside the
14 envelopes or that had come from polling stations.
15 That is correct, is it not?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. The opening of the envelopes took place at one end of
18 the Aston table, correct?
19 A. There was already counting started when I was there.
20 Q. Take it this way, the opening took place at one end of
21 the table, the counting part took place at the other end
22 of the Aston table. Is that correct?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. Some staff were devoted to opening up the envelopes and
25 matching, correct?
85

1 A. Which envelope are you talking about?
2 Q. I will deal with it this way.
3 THE COMMISSIONER: Let us think this through. You have the
4 ballot envelopes that come in with the ballot papers
5 inside.
6 A. Yes.
7 THE COMMISSIONER: What Mr Coppel is putting to you is
8 this: one of the things that was going on on each of
9 these tables was that people were opening up the
10 envelopes, taking out the contents and dealing with
11 them. Do you remember that happening?
12 A. No.
13 MR COPPEL: Mr Ahmed, perhaps you can tell the court what
14 you do remember taking place at the Aston table on
15 11th June.
16 A. I already said in my statement that when I walked in,
17 I saw the Nickleby's bag and there was white paper on
18 the top of the postal vote, top of the bag. There were
19 two or three other people there as well. There was
20 a suspicion and I talked to Ayoub Khan.
21 THE COMMISSIONER: Let us get a basic question here. Why
22 did you think that the Nickleby's bag had anything to do
23 with your ward rather than somebody else's ward?
24 A. That was in the Aston ward.
25 THE COMMISSIONER: Right. So it was next to the Aston ward
86

1 table?
2 A. That was the Aston ward table, within the Aston ward
3 table.
4 THE COMMISSIONER: Right.
5 A. There were six or seven tables in a line and the one bag
6 was there by the table, the first table.
7 THE COMMISSIONER: So that is why you thought this was
8 something to do with the Aston ward because it was on
9 the Aston table?
10 A. That is right.
11 MR COPPEL: That is step one. Tell the court what you
12 remember being done at the Aston table. Forget about
13 the Nickleby's bag itself. Tell the court what you
14 recollect the election officer staff were doing at that
15 table.
16 A. They were taking all the ballot papers from the boxes
17 and putting them on the tables.
18 Q. Anything else?
19 A. No, as far as I know.
20 Q. Can you remember -- maybe this will help you -- seeing
21 envelopes like this (indicating)?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You can do?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. That is envelope B?
87

1 A. That is right.
2 Q. What happened when there was an envelope B around?
3 What did they do with it?
4 A. They take out the ...
5 Q. Contents?
6 A. Yes, and the ballot paper envelope.
7 Q. So they opened up this envelope, the one with the purple
8 corners, took out the contents, and what was inside?
9 A. The ballot paper.
10 Q. Are you quite sure about that?
11 A. No, there was envelope A and a DOI.
12 Q. There was an envelope A and there was a declaration of
13 identity?
14 A. Declaration of identity, yes.
15 Q. That is it?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. When they did that, when they opened up the envelope B,
20 the officers checked that the number on envelope A
21 matched the number on the declaration of identity;
22 correct?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. You saw them doing that, did you not?
25 A. What I tried to explain, this was all the envelopes
88

1 within the bag. When we complained to the official --
2 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Coppel is not talking about the ones
3 in the bag for the moment. What he is saying is that
4 before the bag was opened, were there people at the
5 table who were opening envelopes like one he is showing
6 you?
7 A. No.
8 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Coppel, I think we need a break.
9 MR COPPEL: I certainly do, sir.
10 THE COMMISSIONER: At 2 o'clock I shall deal briefly,
11 I hope, with the Bordesley Green matter for which
12 I express my thanks to Mr Owen for the efficiency with
13 which he has retrieved the material I have drafted.
14 MR BRODIE: Sir, there are matters I wish to raise
15 in relation to the draft and I understand Mr Brook also
16 wishes to raise one matter. I am not sure whether it is
17 more convenient to do that now or at 2 o'clock.
18 THE COMMISSIONER: We will deal with it now.
19 MR COPPEL: Sir, I have not had an opportunity to look at
20 that and I would like to.
21 THE COMMISSIONER: In which case we had better do it at
22 2 o'clock. This is a draft of my own devising. I am
23 aware of no precedent which will assist me at all, and
24 the advantage is that Mr Owen at least has it in Word
25 form so that if we agree changes, it can be tinkered
89

1 with, but I would more than welcome input from any
2 counsel in this case as to the form of the notice.
3 MR BRODIE: Very well.
4 THE COMMISSIONER: 2 o'clock.
5 (1.00 pm)
6 (The short adjournment)
7 (2.00 pm)
8 MR COPPEL: Sir, may I mention the first matter, that is
9 witnesses that Mr Sukul wants cross-examined and those
10 he does not want cross-examined in the Aston petition.
11 He has now given me a list of seven names of
12 individuals whom he does not ask to be cross-examined
13 and I read them out: Jenny Bent, Tracey Jones, Lorna
14 Hussey, Aviral Kalsi, Sheila Hurst, Rodger Lawrence and
15 John Gale.
16 My learned friend did ask me to make certain remarks
17 to him in relation to what I would make of him not
18 asking them to the present for cross-examination. All
19 that I can say and I do say in open court is that all
20 the usual consequences of not having cross-examined the
21 witness will follow from these seven names being named.
22 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
23 Bordesley Green matter
24 MR COPPEL: The second matter is that you should have
25 in relation to the notice in the Bordesley Green matter
90

1 a copy with some writing on it, by me, with suggested
2 changes. I know my learned friend for the Director of
3 Public Prosecutions also has some suggestions and
4 I think Mr Brodie too may have some suggestions.
5 Before we get to those, it might be a convenient
6 moment to mention to Mr Sukul that if he proposes to
7 carry out a like exercise that he come up with the names
8 sooner rather than later in order to avoid delay to the
9 determination of the Aston matter.
10 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Have you seen Mr Coppel's version?
11 MR BRODIE: Yes, and I do not take any exception to the
12 amendments he suggests.
13 THE COMMISSIONER: May I have a look at them?
14 MR BRODIE: Both pieces of paper. They are nothing if not
15 full.
16 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
17 MR COPPEL: Sir, may I explain. Under the Act they are
18 required to go by registered post unless you otherwise
19 order.
20 THE COMMISSIONER: I am happy that they should go by
21 registered post.
22 (Pause)
23 I think the amendments to the first paragraph are
24 not worth arguing about. On the other hand, I think so
25 far as the second page ...
91

1 Why do we need to spell out the consequences beyond
2 saying they are the consequences laid down -- in fact,
3 we can say in sub-sections 3 to 5A of section 160, take
4 out the report being made for the Director.
5 MR COPPEL: I think Mr Brook has certain remarks to make
6 in relation to penalty and we generally support the
7 notion that it may be better to spell out with some
8 degree of fullness exactly what is going to follow, if
9 there is a report by you, sir, rather than to simply
10 refer an individual to a copy of the Representation of
11 the People Act 1983.
12 THE COMMISSIONER: All right. You are entitled to be
13 represented at that hearing.
14 MR COPPEL: There is in fact a difficulty with that. The
15 words in the provision itself refer to "shall give him
16 an opportunity of being heard by himself". And my
17 learned friend has referred to venerable authority in
18 support of this but it is difficult to see that that
19 withstands the Human Rights Act.
20 THE COMMISSIONER: I think there was a difference between
21 that and actually stating in terms that you are entitled
22 to be represented in the hearing because that may not be
23 the case.
24 MR COPPEL: Shall we put in "may be entitled to be"?
25 THE COMMISSIONER: All right.
92

1 MR BRODIE: If you say that I would be concerned, because
2 the person to whom the notice is directed really ought
3 to know that a decision has been made as to whether or
4 not they are entitled to appear by lawyers. They are
5 not going to start instructing somebody on the
6 off-chance that that person may or may not have the
7 right to make submissions or to call evidence.
8 I agree with Mr Coppel entirely, surprisingly, that
9 Article 6 probably does require that these people are
10 given an opportunity for representation.
11 THE COMMISSIONER: What is the procedure with so-called
12 Salmon letters, written to people in public enquiries
13 that they may be criticised by an enquiry and they have
14 the right to attend?
15 MR BRODIE: There is a difference.
16 THE COMMISSIONER: I appreciate that, but are they entitled
17 to attend through representatives?
18 MR BRODIE: I do not know. Mr Coppel may know.
19 MR COPPEL: It depends on the enquiries. Certainly in some
20 enquiries the view taken at the outset of the enquiry
21 is that individuals who may be named shall be entitled
22 to be represented and that certainly has become the norm
23 in recent years.
24 For the Returning Officer's part, we certainly would
25 not be objecting to them attending with representatives
93

1 nor to them being told in this notice that they should
2 be --
3 THE COMMISSIONER: If all the interested parties take the
4 view I will go back to the wording as it is: you are
5 entitled.
6 MR BRODIE: Can I explain why? It seems on the face of it
7 that the consequences would come within the autonomous
8 definition of criminal charge. They would suffer
9 a penalty if there was a finding against them: they
10 would not be able to vote, they would not be able to
11 stand, they would not be able to be election agents.
12 On the face of it, would be a penalty.
13 THE COMMISSIONER: I will go with that. (Reads) This is
14 162. Yes, if you want everything spelt out, it has to
15 be spelt out. (Reads).
16 So far so good. What would you like to add?
17 MR BRODIE: My additions are rather more complicated than
18 Mr Brook's.
19 MR BROOK: I would simply wish, since this notice is being
20 sent to unqualified civilians, if I may use that phrase,
21 that the penalties are spelt out rather than them simply
22 being directed to a section of an Act which they may not
23 have access to, so they realise, no doubt, the fact that
24 it is sent by this court will make them realise it is
25 important, but that will be spelt out that they may lose
94

1 their right to vote, for example.
2 MR COPPEL: Is the easy road, to make the notice not too
3 heavy, simply to enclose a copy of the relevant sections
4 of the act?
5 MR BROOK: That is a sensible suggestion, yes.
6 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Brodie, you have more?
7 MR BRODIE: I am afraid I do.
8 There are two concerns I have. The first is this.
9 This notice relies entirely upon suspicious declarations
10 of identity. There is, however, a different category
11 which has not been set out in the notices. That is
12 those ballot papers which were taken on an undertaking
13 to deliver them to the elections office but which had
14 been altered prior to receipt.
15 THE COMMISSIONER: I am not totally certain that that is by
16 itself a section 60 or section 61 offence.
17 MR BRODIE: It is an offence to --
18 THE COMMISSIONER: It is, but it may not be a section 60 or
19 61, and I can only name those who have been guilty of
20 section 60 or 61 conduct.
21 MR BRODIE: Looking at the definition of impersonation --
22 THE COMMISSIONER: Guilty of any corrupt or illegal
23 practice, and corrupt and illegal practice is defined by
24 60 and 61.
25 I thought about that, but it seemed to me (a) it was
95

1 overegging the pudding, and (b), I was not totally
2 certain whether these really did come within -- besides,
3 we do not have any very cogent evidence to show who
4 altered the altered ballot papers.
5 MR BRODIE: It is inconceivable that these people, who
6 undertook to ensure the delivery of these completed
7 ballots to the elections office, could not at the very
8 least be named as conspirators in an agreement to have
9 those votes altered.
10 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but ...
11 MR BRODIE: In relation to one person that is the only
12 evidence against them at all. If you look at them on
13 the list, the second to last.
14 THE COMMISSIONER: Page number?
15 MR BRODIE: Page 41.
16 THE COMMISSIONER: Ah. He is also down for two signed, but
17 they are not in any of the other categories.
18 MR BRODIE: There is nothing necessarily wrong with
19 witnessing, it is witnessing declarations that were
20 improper.
21 I would argue that somebody who altered a paper in
22 this way would be voting by post as some other person
23 and therefore come within sub-section 2 of section 60
24 which sets out impersonation.
25 Shall I move on to my second concern, which is
96

1 this: one anticipates from this notice that a number of
2 people will attend, either in person or represented,
3 a week on Monday.
4 It may be that there will be applications for some
5 form of an adjournment to enable them to consider the
6 evidence that is against them.
7 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
8 MR BRODIE: In those circumstances, would it not be a good
9 idea to set out in some sort of schedule evidence that
10 is against them, when we send out these notices, rather
11 than merely inviting them to attend and then give them
12 the evidence?
13 THE COMMISSIONER: I am uneasy at the way in which this is
14 mushrooming.
15 MR BRODIE: I can understand that.
16 THE COMMISSIONER: A lot of these people are simply said to
17 be -- although they are said to be responsible for
18 forged documents, they are said simply to be relatives
19 of the candidates.
20 MR BRODIE: Yes, but that is not the basis --
21 THE COMMISSIONER: How necessary is it in reasonable terms,
22 assuming that I am entitled to do so, that I should, as
23 it were, name and shame them?
24 MR BRODIE: By virtue of their relationship with the
25 candidates on familial grounds alone, that would give no
97

1 ground whatsoever for you to name and shame them. It is
2 their conduct rather than their relationships which
3 we are focusing on.
4 THE COMMISSIONER: I am very uneasy at opening too much of
5 a Pandora's box. Going back to our original point,
6 I can see no objection with them being supplied with the
7 material which is alleged against them. If that can be
8 done.
9 MR BRODIE: I see no reason why they should not simply be
10 given copies of the pages that relate to them, with
11 headings.
12 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
13 MR BRODIE: I am sure that could be provided on Monday.
14 THE COMMISSIONER: But what we have are people who are said
15 to have committed other wrongs, like collecting ballot
16 papers from individuals and then dealing with them
17 improperly or collecting ballot papers from postmen and
18 so on and so forth.
19 MR BRODIE: There is nobody who appears on this list simply
20 alleged to have collected blank postal vote papers from
21 postmen. They are all, apart from the person at
22 page 41, they all have evidence against them in relation
23 to --
24 THE COMMISSIONER: How important is the person on page 41?
25 He is said to be a relation to one of the candidates.
98

1 How essential is it to --
2 MR BRODIE: I have not taken particular instruction about
3 that person.
4 THE COMMISSIONER: Can I tell you the way in which I was
5 going to prune the list? I was going to prune it by
6 removing the person at page 16. 17 is already out. The
7 person at page 31, the person at page 34, the person at
8 page 35, the person at page 36, the person at page 37
9 and the person at page 40.
10 MR BRODIE: Is this on a numerical analysis?
11 THE COMMISSIONER: Partly on a numerical analysis and partly
12 on apparent importance in the organisation. That will
13 reduce the list to 20, which is nonetheless quite a lot.
14 MR BRODIE: It is, yes.
15 THE COMMISSIONER: I am anxious to keep this nice and simple
16 and if the only matter against the man at page 41 is
17 what is in the comments on 41, then I think simply for
18 the purposes of proportionality I would remove him
19 rather than devise an entirely separate form and have
20 him dealt with differently from the others.
21 MR BRODIE: I wonder if I might take instructions.
22 MR COPPEL: While my learned friend takes instruction, two
23 points. First of all, I do not know who is going to be
24 charged with the administrative task of sending these
25 notices.
99

1 THE COMMISSIONER: That is a real problem. I have no
2 back-up whatsoever. So the only person with any back-up
3 is your client and I am afraid you will be the person to
4 be asked.
5 MR COPPEL: We can deal with that; the only thing is that
6 under section 184 there is a specific address to which
7 the notices must be sent. We need to know from the
8 petitioners what that address is, namely it has to be
9 the last known place of abode in the constituency. That
10 is a matter for the petitioners. This is their
11 application. We need to have that.
12 When and only when we have that will we be able to
13 help the court administratively by sending them out by
14 registered post.
15 Point 2, in relation to my learned friend's
16 suggestion that the evidence be included with the
17 notice, when this matter was first raised by my learned
18 friend I made this very suggestion because it seemed to
19 me only fair to those receiving such a notice that they
20 have as much information as possible in order to be able
21 to answer it.
22 So I support him in that. It is just a shame it has
23 not been done yet.
24 MR BRODIE: The last known address is the first address for
25 each individual which has the postcode alongside it.
100

1 THE COMMISSIONER: With regard to the person who appears at
2 page 6 and 10, is it said they are the same person?
3 MR BRODIE: No.
4 THE COMMISSIONER: They are two people of similar name.
5 MR BRODIE: That is why they are in different sections.
6 THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, I thought so, in which case I am
7 happy to accept the amendments that Mr Coppel has made
8 to the notice. I think it would be sensible if the
9 notice were accompanied by a photocopy of sections
10 160 --
11 MR COPPEL: I was proposing 160 to 173 for fullness.
12 That way, there can be no question that they have
13 received a full slate of the provisions and that might
14 be said to touch them as a result of their being named.
15 THE COMMISSIONER: Do you think 60 and 61 should be?
16 They are mentioned. Schedule 4 of the Representation of
17 the People Act.
18 MR BRODIE: I think inevitably they would have to be.
19 THE COMMISSIONER: A small clip of material will have to be
20 sent to them so they know precisely the case they have
21 to meet.
22 Clearly that is going to create some logistical
23 difficulties. Can I say that I would wish them, if
24 humanly possible, to be in a position to have received
25 it on Wednesday next week. If that is humanly possible.
101

1 That will then give them, in effect, Wednesday,
2 Thursday, and Friday to get their act together.
3 If they do not get their act together and come on
4 Monday with a reasonable explanation as to why they have
5 not got their act together, then I shall hear them.
6 MR COPPEL: In order that those behind