Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Phil Woolas' political career was killed off by the courts.

The law says there is no appeal; the two High Court judges who convicted him were effectively political executioners.

So instead, the former MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth is applying for judicial review.

This means he is arguing the Election Court made an error in the way the decision was made, rather than the decision itself.

Of course, if he succeeds in that, he hopes to overturn the entire judgment.

But there is a big obstacle in his path. High Courts cannot judicially review other High Court decisions.

That is why Mr Woolas failed in a written application and has instead been arguing his case before three senior judges.

Mr Watkins and his team are there opposing the application. It is almost like old times, except more difficult to follow.

The convicted MP hopes to get over the first obstacle by arguing that an Election Court is not a High Court. Yes, it is made up of two High Court judges but is in fact a separate and less powerful court, he claims.

The judges are considering this argument. Meanwhile the arguments for the actual judicial review were heard too.

It might seem strange to hear those arguments before we even know if the judicial review is possible. But it's almost like a twin-track approach and is designed to save time.

So on what grounds is Mr Woolas seeking judicial review?

You might remember Elwyn Watkins had to prove the allegations made against him in the Labour leaflets were about his personal character rather than his political position.

The Election Court agreed they were.

But Mr Woolas is arguing they were not; they were made during an election campaign and were therefore political attacks.

It leaves the three High Court judges to make two decisions: whether to grant judicial review, and the outcome of the judicial review.

The best case for Mr Woolas is that they agree to a judicial review and accept his arguments.

The worst case would be if they refuse the judicial review, but add, Mr Woolas wouldn't have won anyway.

That would make it more difficult to justify continuing with the process and going to the Appeal Court. But, of course, that is a matter for Phil Woolas.

He did his best to keep out of court.

Now he is left clinging to the gates of the High Court as everyone else prepares to move on; it might be the last chance to save his reputation.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?