KILLER PUNCH FROM TEAM-JM 120. In Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Edition, Volume 15(4) at paragraph 670, it was stated as follows: “No election is to be declared invalid by reason of any act or omission by the returning officer or any other person in breach of his official duty in connection with the election or otherwise of the appropriate elections rules if it appears to the tribunal having cognisance of the question that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the law as to the elections, and that the act or omission did not affect the result. The function of the court in exercising this jurisdiction is not assisted by consideration of the standard of proof but, having regard to the consequences of declaring an election void, there must be a preponderance of evidence supporting any conclusion that the rule was affected.” 121. This position is in accordance persuasive authority. In the Orpitz case, (supra), it was held on page 42 (paragraph 66) as follows: “By contrast, if a vote cast by an entitled voter were to be rejected in a contested election application because of an irregularity, the voter would be irreparably disenfranchised. This is especially undesirable when the irregularity is outside of the voter’s control, and is caused solely by the error of an election official.” 122. It would be misdirecting punishment indeed for entitled voters who stayed in long queues to cast their votes, and whose vote had been counted, entered onto a declaration form and publicly declared to be deprived of the right to have those votes counted as a result of an act of omission by an electoral officer (not willfully done), over whose conduct the voters have no control. 123. We therefore invite Your Lordships to hold that on the facts of this case, failure by Presiding Officers to sign declaration forms did not affect the results of the elections at the respective polling stations.
Posted on: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 18:22:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015