Ö÷²¥´óÐã

On Monday the Commons Speaker, John Bercow, ruled that MPs could finally discuss the issues surrounding Phil Woolas.

That's because the former Labour MP's legal battle has finally ended in defeat, after the High Court ruled on Friday against his judicial review.

But should MPs wish to debate this case, they will find it has become even more complicated.

A judicial review is a type of appeal, but it considers the decision-making process, not the decision itself.

Mr Woolas did well to get even that far.

The law was deliberately drafted to avoid exactly this kind of legal delay; once an MP has been disqualified, they are expected to simply shut-up and go.

The courts started dealing with Parliamentary election petitions back in 1870. 76 MPs have lost their seats since then, the last in 1924.

But such a decision has never been judicially reviewed until now.

Normally any disputed issues of law should be considered before a judgment is reached, but in this case it was not clear that such an issue had arisen.

Lord Justice Thomas, Mr Justice Tugendhat and Mrs Justice Nicola Davies agreed to "exceptionally grant permission".

This gave Phil Woolas the chance to argue that the judges had misinterpreted his attacks on Elwyn Watkins as personal, rather than political.

It was a critical legal issue because political attacks are perfectly legal and would not have resulted in Mr Woolas losing his seat.

During the election, Mr Woolas claimed Elwyn Watkins had promised to live in the constituency but was not really doing so.

The Election judges ruled this was a personal attack: "A person who breaks his promise is untrustworthy."

But the High Court overruled them and agreed with Phil Woolas.

They ruled that an attack had to be either political or personal, it could not be both. This they decided was a political attack, even if it was untrue.

However, it is worth remembering the Election judges had made pretty clear that this issue alone would not have been enough to evict Phil Woolas from Parliament.

Far more important was the false allegation that Elwyn Watkins had been wooing Muslim extremists.

The Election Court took this to mean violent extremists.

The High Court upheld the conviction on this basis because such a serious accusation went "from being a statement as to Mr Watkins' political position to a statement about his personal character."

But Mr Woolas has always argued that he accused his opponent of wooing Muslim extremists but not violent extremists.

Mr Watkins' lawyers successfully argued there was no such distinction, and indeed the leaflets showed photographs of Muslims jailed for threatening violence.

But because this was a judicial review rather than an appeal, those arguments could not be heard again.

The High Court could only rule on the application of the law and it decided that on this far more serious charge, the Election Court had judged correctly.

Mr Woolas' supporters will share his anger and frustration that he cannot appeal and argue his case again.

But he knew that he was taking a serious political gamble when he sanctioned his all-out campaign. He just did not realise the stakes were as high as they were.

Phil Woolas hoped to make political headlines in victory, in the end he made legal history in defeat.

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