Political

The CPS’s criteria for prosecuting over election offences

As it’s come up a few times in discussions triggered by my post on how Theresa May isn’t a guaranteed shoo-in for the 2017 general election, here are the Crown Prosecution Service’s criteria for deciding whether or not to prosecution election-related offences:

Proceedings for major infringements will normally be in the public interest.

Proceedings for other infringements may not be in the public interest in situations where:

  • the offence is of a “technical” nature which does not infringe the spirit of the legislation;
  • the offence was committed as a result of a genuine mistake or misunderstanding;
  • the offence could not have influenced the result of the election process; or
  • the offender has remedied any breach of the law.

If the offence falls to be considered under one or more of the criteria above, the matter may be dealt by way of a caution administered by the police or, where appropriate, the provisions of advice as to an individual’s future conduct.

In practice, it may be difficult to prove that the result of an election has been affected by an infringement. However, the fact that a breach has or may have affected the result of an election is a factor to be taken into consideration in deciding whether proceedings should be instigated. Whilst every case will of course turn on its own facts, where there is clear evidence that a breach has affected the result or is likely to have done so, the public interest is more likely to require a prosecution – even if the infringement itself is relatively minor.

It’s worth in particular noting that a few of the more common reasons that crop up on online chatter either from Conservatives, or reported as being said by Conservatives, do not feature in the criteria.

In particular, the fact that someone might have secured re-election before a court case could proceed against them is not a factor.

Moreover, prosecutions are not restricted to proceeding only on the basis that the offence altered the election result. That’s only required for one very specific set of legal action, which isn’t what’s at stake in the current cases involving so many Conservative MPs.

Keep up with news about elections by email

If you’d like to be notified by email when new posts about how are how our elections are run appear on this blog, just sign up here. (Note: if you’re already signed up for a daily email alert with all my new blog posts, then there’s no need to sign up for these alerts too as the stories will also be in the full daily digest.)

  • If you submit this form, your data will be used in line with the privacy policy here to update you on the topic(s) selected. This may including using this data to contact you via a variety of digital channels.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

One response to “The CPS’s criteria for prosecuting over election offences”

  1. If you want an example of a prosecution not affecting the result, there was a prosecution over the local elections in Burnley in 2010 which involved the misappropriation of 50 ballot papers. They were counted in the election result (as they had to be as, despite suspicions, they were in the ballot box. The election was comfortably won by Labour and the perpetrator was a Lib Dem activist. (For the record – and as the agent for the ward involved! – it was an entirely justified prosecution)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments and data you submit with them will be handled in line with the privacy and moderation policies.