R (Good Law Project) v Electoral Commission
[2018] EWHC 2414 (Admin)
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
A donation can also be a 'referendum expense' incurred by the donor under s.111(2) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Where money is paid directly to a supplier, by agreement with the donee, to fund particular qualifying goods or services such as advertising, or is given on terms binding the donee to spend it that way, the expense counts towards the donor's own spending limit; only 'general' donations which the recipient is free to spend as it chooses do not.
Facts
During the 2016 EU referendum campaign, Vote Leave, the designated 'leave' campaign, paid £620,000 directly to AggregateIQ, a Canadian online advertising firm, to pay for advertising which another leave campaigner, Mr Darren Grimes, had ordered. The payments were reported by Mr Grimes but not included in Vote Leave's own spending return, and the Electoral Commission concluded there were no reasonable grounds to suspect incorrect reporting. The Good Law Project sought judicial review, arguing that the Commission had misinterpreted the statutory definition of 'referendum expenses'.
Judgment Summary
The Good Law Project won: the court held that the Electoral Commission had misinterpreted the definition of 'referendum expenses' in s.111(2) PPERA, its error stemming from a mistaken assumption that a donation cannot also be a referendum expense incurred by the donor. On the correct interpretation, Vote Leave incurred referendum expenses by making the payments to AggregateIQ, and the court made a declaration recording that conclusion. By the time of judgment the Commission had separately investigated and found offences on the different 'common plan' basis.
Key Quotes
"For the reasons given, we conclude that the Electoral Commission has misinterpreted the definition of “referendum expenses” in section 111(2) of PPERA. The source of its error is a mistaken assumption that an individual or body which makes a donation to a permitted participant cannot thereby incur referendum expenses. As a result of this error, the Electoral Commission has interpreted the definition in a way that is inconsistent with both the language and the purpose of the legislation."
— the Court at [94](verbatim, verified against the judgment)
"We will make a declaration which records our conclusion."
— the Court at [99](verbatim, verified against the judgment)
Subsequent Treatment
Part of the case law on judicial oversight of electoral regulation.
What To Do Next
Get Professional Help