SOLACE ELECTIONS CONFERENCE
19 JANUARY 2017
Case study: Registration Process
Janie Berry
(Acting) Returning Officer for Derby
Director of Governance and Monitoring Officer
Derby City Council
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
2
Case studies: Interactive workshops
Case study: Registration process
Scenario
In preparation for the local elections in May 2016, a candidates and agents’ briefing had
been planned in advance of the March 2016 nomination period. This was a wellattended event (held on a Saturday morning) and detailed presentations relating to the
nomination process were given by the Returning Officer. A presentation was also given
by the Single Point of Contact (SPOC) from Derbyshire Constabulary. Operational
Police were also in attendance. Heavy reference was made to the Electoral
Commissions’ Guidance to support potential candidates.
Having attended the briefing, RS submitted his nomination forms to stand as a
candidate for the Allestree Ward in Derby.
Within his nomination papers, RS advised that he qualified to stand as he was a
resident in the City. The necessary checks were undertaken and RS’ nomination was
deemed valid.
On 8 April 2016, RS was confirmed as the Conservative Party candidate along with
three other candidates.
The campaign period for this Ward proved unremarkable. However, a query was
received from the local media (who have a very keen interest in the local elections)
questioning RS’s eligibility to stand as a candidate when they understood his business
to be outside of the City boundary.
At the conclusion of the count, RS was confirmed as the successful candidate. He
received 2,820 votes out of a total 4647. He had a majority of 2,035. This was one of
the largest majority wins of all the results declared across the City.
On 15 May 2016, RS attended the induction briefing for all newly elected and re-elected
Councillors. The induction briefing covered a number of key issues including:




Photographs, ID and security, IT and tour of the Council House
Code of Conduct
DBS requirements for all Councillors
Committee structures
RS’ demeanour throughout this briefing became increasingly agitated.
On 16 May 2016, RS emailed his resignation citing personal issues as the explanation.
RS had no further direct communication with Council officers.
3
Background
RS was not new to local politics.
RS had previously been a ward Councillor from May 2002 until May 2008 when he
stood down and did not stand for re-election.
RS had served on a number of committees while a Councillor and was well known in
the local political community.
Leading up to his nomination and subsequent win in May 2016, RS had held a senior
role in the local Conservative Association which crossed the City and County area.
The ward he sought nomination for was the one he had previously represented. This
ward is known to be one of the safest Conservative seats in the Council and historically
attracts a high voter turnout.
Derby has 51 Councillors and has elections by thirds. 2016 was the last of the three
years. 2017 is a fallow year.
All Councillors receive an annual allowance of just over £10k per annum.
4
What followed after RS’ resignation
RS’ resignation did come as a shock to all, including the local political community.
Very quickly questions started to be asked and rumours quickly spread that he had
health issues, business commitments and also that he did not actually reside in the City.
As a result of the close working relationship held with the Constabulary SPOC,
information about the resignation was shared almost immediately, including the earlier
query about RS’ business not falling within the City boundary.
The Constabulary made some initial enquiries and, following a check of the Council Tax
information for the address given in the nomination form, it transpired that RS was not
registered as a Council Tax payer.
The Constabulary then took statements from my staff and I, who had had direct
involvement in the nomination process, including copies of all of the material we held
about RS.
RS was subsequently interviewed by the Constabulary and immediately advised that:






he did not reside in the City
he did not have (qualifying) business interests in the City
he enjoyed the thrill of local politics and this was his motivation for submitting his
nomination
he had used a friend’s address in January 2016 to ensure he was a registered
elector in the City in time for publication of the March 2016 Register of Electors
once elected, he planned to step down at the earliest opportunity ie local
elections in 2018 so that no one would discover the true circumstances and to
prevent the Council incurring additional costs of a by-election
he did not implicate any other person in his planning.
At the conclusion of their investigation, RS was charged with an offence under s13D
Representation of the People Act 1983 – Provision of False Information. RS pleaded
guilty.
The case was listed before a District Judge sitting in the Magistrates Court on
23 August 2016.
RS received a two month custodial sentence.
The Council submitted an application to recover the costs of the by-election. However,
as the by-election was still to take place, and thus the final costs to be determined, this
application failed.
The by-election took place in September 2016. The Conservative Party candidate won
but with a much reduced majority.
5
Questions
1.
What went well?
2.
Should the Returning Officer have done more to
check the validity of the nomination ground prior
to the candidates being confirmed?
3.
What about the query raised by the local media?
4.
What if the media query had concerned RS’
address or generally queried his ground for
nomination? What action would have been
taken?
5.
If, on the face of it, RS’ nomination and
subsequent success was not challenged, which
aspect of the events in question triggered him to
resign?
6
Questions and answers
Question 1 - What went well?
 Good attendance at the candidates’ and agents’ briefing sessions.
Register of attendance was made and retained.
 Attendance of the Constabulary at the briefing sessions. Their
attendance was not only useful in terms of their contribution, but
was also a very visible presence and demonstration of our
partnership working.
 Prompt sharing of information with the SPOC resulted in an
efficient and effective investigation and ultimate prosecution.
 Meticulous keeping of a log of actions and paperwork retained by
Returning Officer and Elections staff.
Question 2 – Should the Returning Officer have done more to check
the validity of the nomination ground prior to the candidates being
confirmed?
 No. The Returning Officer must take the information provided by
the prospective candidate on face value.
Question 3 - What about the query raised by the local media?
 Queries from the local media can prove very helpful. They often
undertake quite an extensive scrutiny of the candidates and so
tend to research their circumstances, especially if the candidate is
relatively well known.
 In this instance RS had not sought to rely on his business as a
ground for nomination, therefore there was little that could be
done.
Question 4 - What if the media query had concerned RS’ address or
generally queried his ground for nomination? What action would
have been taken?
 This is an interesting point. The responsibility for the maintenance
and integrity of the electoral register rests with the Electoral
Registration Officer (ERO).
 If the local media, or indeed anyone, shared this concern, the ERO
would have had the ability to consider conducting a review (as
7
prescribed by the Electoral Commission’s Guidance on Individual
Electoral Registration). Given the proximity of Polling Day, a Type
C review would have been conducted. This places the burden on
the voter, in this instance the candidate, of providing sufficient
evidence to demonstrate residence at the stated address.
 This is a useful procedure and the role of the ERO should not be
under-estimated.
Question 5 - If, on the face of it, RS’ nomination and subsequent
success was not challenged, which aspect of the events in question
triggered him to resign?
 It later transpired that RS made the decision to resign after he was
advised at the induction session that the Council would be
undertaking DBS checks of all Councillors. The Council did not
undertake DBS checks in 2002 but this has recently been
introduced as an additional safeguard towards robust governance.
 As RS had provided a false address on his nomination papers, he
realised that it would be impossible to provide sufficient evidence
to satisfy the DBS’ requirements relating to residence.
8