Mark Pack

Well, it seems she's been cautioned for some offence, anyway: http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Bristol-MP-gets-police-caution-putting-election-results-Twitter/article-2795724-detail/article.html I wonder what provision the police actually cited.

I think Jason must be right about this, though, Mark. It wasn't based on information given by voters after they voted. The only information on which it was based was the votes themselves. Section 66A clearly targets the essence of what an exit poll is - that's different from revealing what actual votes tally up to. If there's an offence here, I think it must be under section 66(4). Apologies for the ultra-long URL: http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=Act+(UK+Public+General)&title=representation&Year=1983&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=2353486&ActiveTextDocId=2353571&filesize=30281 It's none of the (a) to (d) list (it's not (d) unless she disclosed who any particular voter voted for), but arguably she commits an offence simply under s66(4) itself if she attending proceedings in connection with the receipt of postal ballot papers and then breached her duty to maintain and aid in maintaining the secrecy of the voting.

Yes, I understand the process, my question is how this can be said to be an exit poll. And, why then are Bristol City Council referring to Section 66 (4) (d) instead? Which would appear itself to be inapplicable here. In McWhirter v Platten [1969] 1 All E.R. 906. Lord Parker's comment that: "There cannot be any secrecy in the totality of the votes, as opposed to how any particular person voted." seems apposite.

Jason: that's exactly what it is. At the postal vote opening which took place in Bristol, for example, returned and completed postal vote paperwork was being opened, checked and sorted. That includes ballot papers which people have completed. The ballot papers are then stored securely ready for the count next Thursday. This is a normal process that happens all round the country. Checking the paperwork in advance means that, for example, signs of electoral fraud can be spotted whilst it's still going on and so there's more chance for the police to catch the culprits. It's a system that has generally worked well, except where people have broken the law by publicly revealing information taken from those completed ballot papers. (In case you're wondering how I know such things: my own experience on this is that I've been to numerous postal vote openings over the last two decades; have served on the Electoral Commission's Political Parties Panel and co-authored two books on electoral law.)

How can it be, unless it was "based on information given by voters after they have voted"? You've not thought this through.

"Commenting on postal vote tallies is like opening up ballot boxes during voting, and publicizing running totals." No, two of those are legal. Opening ballot boxes isn't.

Morus: it's not "intentions" that this clause deals with, it's actual *votes*. Commenting on postal vote tallies is like opening up ballot boxes during voting, and publicizing running totals.

It's a particularly ridiculous article - no media outlet can speculate on the result if they have spoken to voters about their intentions on the day?