Nick Thornsby's Blog

The second day of the Election Court hearing taking place in Oldham East and Saddleworth was dominated by a forensic cross-examination of Phil Woolas by Elwyn Watkins’ junior counsel, James Laddie.

Mr Laddie began his cross-examination yesterday afternoon, and concluded at the close of play today – a total of roughly seven hours of questioning.

Mr Laddie began today by asking Mr Woolas about the arrangements of his campaign team: who was a member, who attended morning campaign meetings, and Phil Woolas’ relationship with the various members of the team.

He then moved on to to asking Mr Woolas about the genesis of the first “attack leaflet” that his campaign produced. Mr Woolas was questioned in detail about the contents of various email chains between members of his campaign team, some of which were sent to and from Mr Woolas himself. Mr Laddie asked Mr Woolas about his comment in an email discussing the first ‘attack leaflet’ in which he said that he believed that some Conservatives would not vote “for an Asian”, and that it was important to keep these voters “loyal” to the Conservatives. Phil Woolas said in court that it was in his political interests to portray the Conservatives as still in contention in the election. Asked if he was worried that Conservative voters were turning to the Liberal Democrats, Mr Woolas replied that this was his concern.

Mr Laddie referred to an email, written by Stephen Green (Mr Woolas’ communications specialist) in which Mr Green stated that “a lot hangs” on the attack leaflet, and acknowledged that there were “risks” involved in producing this leaflet. Mr Laddie pressed Mr Woolas to tell the court what he believed Mr Green meant by “risks”. Mr Woolas answered that he believed the “risks” were that some voters might disagree with issues highlighted in the leaflet.

“Risks”, Mr Laddie suggested, was understood by Mr Woolas as taking a more “reckless” approach to the campaign by publishing personal attacks on Mr Watkins. Mr Woolas rejected this interpretation, and contended that he didn’t believe the “attack” leaflet was focussed on Mr Watkins personally, but on policy stances he had taken.

Mr Laddie then asked Mr Woolas about another email exchange in which The Oldham East and Saddleworth Examiner was discussed by Mr Green and Joe Fitzpatrick, Mr Woolas’ election agent. It was suggested that the campaign must go “ strong” on the “militant Muslim angle”. Mr Laddie questioned Mr Woolas as to what he understood by the phrase “militant Muslim angle”. He replied that he believed they were referring to a campaign against him by “extremist” groups, which had previously mounted campaigns against Lorna Fitzsimons (the former Labour MP for Rochdale), Ivan Lewis (Labour MP for Bury South) and Jack Straw (Labour MP for Blackburn).

Mr Laddie said, and Mr Woolas agreed, that at this point in time there was no discussion in these emails about any link between Elwyn Watkins and the militant Muslims that Mr Woolas believed were targeting him.

Mr Laddie asked Mr Woolas about an email exchange from the 26/27 April 2010. In this email exchange it was established that Mr Woolas had said that “Joanna” was not sending a quote that could be used in the Examiner publication. Mr Woolas was asked whether this referred to Joanna Lumley. He replied that it did.

Mr Woolas was asked whether he understood what was meant by the phrase “could we get away with ‘Muslim extremists’ in target piece”, and he replied that he did not understand what was being referred to. Mr Laddie suggested that the phrase “could we get away with” suggested that Mr Woolas’ campaign were prepared to “push the boundaries”. Mr Woolas rejected this interpretation, highlighting that he felt it was legitimate to expose attacks against him.

Mr Laddie quoted an email from Mr Fitzpatrick in which he said to Mr Green: “If we don’t get the white folk angry he’s gone”. The ‘he’ referred to Mr Woolas. Mr Woolas was asked whether he knew about this “strategy”. He replied that he knew about the strategy, but not about the reference to getting people “angry”. Mr Fitzpatrick, Mr Laddie suggested, was telling Mr Green to come up with something to stoke up reactions in one segment of the community, namely the white community. Mr Woolas replied that he doesn’t accept that.

On 29^th April 2010 an email was circulated which contained the final copy for the Examiner leaflet. This copy contained an article which linked Elwyn Watkins with Muslim extremists operating in the constituency. Up to this point, Mr Laddie contended, not a single email showed that Mr Woolas believed that Mr Watkins was wooing the extremist vote. Mr Woolas replied that he accepted there was no email, but that this was his belief.

In another email exchange, Cath Ball, a Labour activist, said to Mr Green that she found the proposed content of the Examiner leaflet “upsetting”. This content was eventually removed.

In a further email exchange on the 29^th April, Mr Green, responding to criticisms about the leaflet he had put together, stated that the issue regarding the Muslim extremists was not whether or not the extremist campaign was effective, but whether the Woolas campaign could use it to “galvanise white Sun-reading voters”.

Mr Laddie tried to establish whether Mr Woolas disagreed with the strategy set out by Mr Green (to get white Sun-readers angry). Mr Woolas said that he didn’t disagree with Mr Green in the emails which were disclosed to the court, but that he did so in a face-to-face conversation with Mr Green.

Questioning Mr Woolas about the Examiner leaflet, it was suggested by Mr Laddie that a “twin strategy” had been adopted. The first strand of this strategy was to report on an extremist threat to Mr Woolas, and the second was to create a link between the extremist threat and Mr Watkins. Asked if he agreed that this was the strategy the publication adopted, Mr Woolas replied that he “wanted people to know what was going on”. Mr Laddie repeated this question to Mr Woolas three times.

Mr Laddie questioned Mr Woolas extensively on the claim in the Examiner that Mr Watkins had called for a ban of arms sales to Israel but not Palestine, and that he had done so in an attempt to “woo extremists”.

Mr Woolas accepted that Mr Watkins did not suggest lifting the (already implemented) ban on the sales of arms to Palestine, but that Mr Watkins, in an Eid card sent out in September 2009, was “silent on the issue”. Mr Watkins, it was suggested, was silent on the issue because arms sales to Palestine were already banned, and that it would therefore be pointless for Mr Watkins to campaign for it.

In one of the more humorous exchanges, Mr Laddie suggested that campaigning for a ban on arms sales to Palestine would be the equivalent to campaigning for Elizabeth Windsor to be made Queen of England.

Mr Laddie spent much of the remainder of the day questioning Mr Woolas about claims in the other publications in question.

Mr Woolas was questioned about an article in the Examiner leaflet entitled ‘The questions that need an answer’. The article refers to a Newsnight report and lists a series of questions that remained unanswered in the report. Mr Laddie put it to Mr Woolas that none of the questions listed in this section of the Examiner were even asked in the Newsnight report. Mr Woolas accepted that he had “sailed very close to the wind” in the case of this part of the leaflet.

The content of a leaflet called the Labour Rose, distributed in the constituency on 5^th May, one day before the election was held, also came in for detailed questioning. The article suggested that “extremist groups” had threatened him with violence and even death threats. It was suggested to Mr Woolas that any death threats that had been made were not from ‘extremist groups’, not from ‘Muslim extremist groups’. Mr Woolas maintained that the article was correct.

Mr Woolas was also questioned as to how he had arrived at the figures included in a story in the Examiner, an edited version of which was later printed in The Rose, regarding the election expenses of Mr Watkins. In the Examiner article, it is stated that: “Local printers and distribution companies estimate that over 500,000 leaflets have been posted to voters in Oldham East and Saddleworth by Lib Dem candidate Elwyn Watkins in the last five months.” It was established from Mr Green’s witness statement that this sentence had been a mistake, and that no such estimate from local companies was obtained.

Mr Woolas was asked how he had come to establish that the “likely cost” of these leaflets would be “a cool £200,000+ for printing and distribution.” He replied that this estimate had come from Mr Green and that he accepted at the time that it was probably correct. Mr Laddie pointed out to Mr Woolas that if this figure was correct, it would almost certainly have implied that Mr Watkins broke election spending limits in the ‘long campaign’ (1^st January – 12^th April). Mr Woolas maintained that he did not claim that Mr Watkins broke election law.

In the concluding remarks to his cross-examination of Mr Woolas, Mr Laddie stated to Mr Woolas: “You peddled falsehoods about the personal character and conduct of your opponent [to give him an electoral advantage]”, adding that Mr Woolas pursued an “anything goes” strategy to win. Mr Laddie also suggested to Mr Woolas that he could have published his allegations about Mr Watkins much earlier in the campaign – perhaps even prior to the short campaign – but chose not to in order to give Mr Watkins no realistic or meaningful opportunity to rebut allegations that he maintains are untrue. Mr Woolas accepted that this was partly the reason, but defended it on the grounds that this was standard political campaigning strategy.

The case continues tomorrow, when Mr Woolas will be questioned by his counsel, Gavin Millar QC, and other witnesses may be called.

P.S. Once again, because this is an ongoing court case, comments have, for the time being, been disabled on this post.

In the first day of the court case against Labour MP Phil Woolas, the court heard from four witnesses: Elwyn Watkins (Woolas’ Lib Dem opponent), Philip Renold (Elwyn Watkins’ election agent), David Hampson (Oldham Lib Dem party treasurer) and Phil Woolas.

Helen Mountfield QC, lead counsel for Elwyn Watkins, opened proceedings. She said that Phil Woolas believed he was going to lose his seat because of a national swing away from his party, because of decisions he’d taken as Immigration Minister and because of his being implicated in the MPs’ expenses scandal. She said that Woolas and his team believed that Conservative-leaning voters wouldn’t support the Conservative candidate due to his ethnicity, and that many of these voters would switch their allegiance to Elwyn Watkins. As a result, Phil Woolas and his campaign team resorted to “shocking” tactics in a “shit or bust” attempt to win. Woolas’ team had a plan to “make the white folk angry”, believing that “asians” or “muslims” would “take Phil out”.

“They set out to attack Mr Watkins personally and say whatever it took to turn the electorate against him.”

Following the Prosecutor’s opening, former Lib Dem candidate Elwyn Watkins was called and cross-examined by Gavin Millar QC, lead counsel for Phil Woolas. Mr Millar began by questioning Mr Watkins about his personal finances and tax status. He then moved onto questioning Mr Watkins about his “lifestyle”, before finally moving onto to detailed questioning about how Mr Watkins’ election campaign was funded. Mr Millar then turned to allegations featured on BBC Newsnight in April made by Rebecca McGladdery that Mr Watkins employed her on less than the minimum wage. Mr Watkins robustly defended himself against the allegations, pointing out on numerous occasions that HMRC had investigated and found that he had no case to answer.

Mr Millar then asked Mr Watkins about some Muslim groups that had allegedly been active in the Oldham East and Saddleworth constituency, and who, Mr Millar submitted, had been urging voters to support Mr Watkins as a way of defeating Phil Woolas. Mr Watkins denied knowing of an alleged endorsement of him by a group known as the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC) on their website in the final weeks of the election campaign.

The questioning then went on to focus on the leaflet published by Mr Woolas which claimed that Elwyn Watkins had “reneged on his promise to live in the constituency”. Mr Millar asked Mr Watkins about the numerous occasions on which he had made public statements expressing his intention to move to the constituency. Mr Millar argued that these statements amounted to “promises” to move to the constituency “imminently”, but Mr Watkins rejected that he had either made a promise to move to the constituency or that he had pledged to do so imminently. Mr Millar also argued that the public disagreements that Mr Watkins had with Mr Woolas about this issue were political arguments that did not relate to Mr Watkins’ personal character. Mr Watkins refuted this, claiming that accusing him of breaking promises was a “personal smear”.

Mr Millar then turned to the accusations that Mr Watkins was “wooing the extremist vote” contained in a mock newspaper-style leaflet distributed by Phil Woolas called The Saddleworth and Oldham Examiner. Mr Millar questioned Mr Watkins about a press release that he issued in January 2009 which called for an end to arms sales from the UK to Israel. Mr Watkins accepted that this was his stated policy position. Mr Millar asked Mr Watkins why he had not also called for arms sales to Hamas to be banned. Mr Watkins replied that, to his knowledge, no British company supplies arms to Hamas, and that to do so would probably be illegal. How, Mr Watkins asked, can he campaign against something that doesn’t even happen? Mr Millar referred to a letter sent by Phil Woolas to Nick Clegg with regards to Mr Watkins’ policy position. In that letter, Mr Millar said, Mr Woolas suggested that Mr Watkins was influenced in taking this position by his involvement with Sheikh Abdullah Alhamrani. Mr Millar suggested that Mr Watkins sympathies lie with “the Palestinians” because of this so-called Arab connection. Mr Watkins refuted these suggestions.

Mr Millar then suggested again that this disagreement was political and not personal. Mr Watkins suggested that this depends on how one defines the term “extremist”, and that, under some definitions, accusing him of “wooing extremists” is a serious allegation about his personal character and judgement.

Mr Millar then asked Mr Watkins about the ‘Loads-a-money’ article that appeared in The Examiner. Mr Millar’s main contention was that the accusations featured in that article were political and not personal. Mr Watkins disagreed, contending that this was a personal attack because the facts of the article were false, leading Mr Woolas to accuse Mr Watkins of committing illegal acts in spending more than was allowed and accepting donations from a foreign donor.

Attention then turned to a leaflet called The Rose, and the section sub-headed “Lib Dem Pact With The Devil”. Mr Millar asked Mr Watkins why he had not rejected an endorsement from a group called MPAC. Mr Watkins answered that he did not know about MPAC’s endorsement, which he contends was only made on their website, and not on leaflets that were being distributed by them.

This line of questioning brought Mr Millar’s cross-examination of Mr Watkins to an end.

Helen Mountfield QC briefly cross-examined Mr Watkins, and asked again about his policy position regarding Israel and arms sales. She asked him to confirm that he had said, in a quotation published in the Jewish Chronicle, that he does not condone the sale of arms to Hamas or Hezabollah. He confirmed this to be an accurate quotation.

After Mr Watkins had finished giving evidence, Helen Mountfield QC called Philip Renold, who was Elwyn Watkins’ election agent in May’s election. She asked him whether he had any comments to make about the accusations by Miss McGladdery that she was paid by Mr Watkins. He said that the only cash that was given out was to cover expenses. Asked if any other cash payments were made at all, he replied “absolutely not”.

Ms Mountfield then called David Hampson, who was the local Lib Dem treasurer at the time of the election. She asked him about the accusations made by Mrs McGladdery. He said that they were not correct and that no ‘cash-in-hand’ transactions took place. Asked if he witnessed any cash exchanges at all, he replied that some out-of-pocket expenses, such as bus fares, were paid, but nothing else.

Phil Woolas was then called as a witness, and was cross-examined by James Laddie, junior counsel to Mr Watkins. Mr Laddie began by asking Mr Woolas whether he accepted that he both published the leaflets in question and approved their publication. He replied that he did. Mr Laddie asked Mr Woolas whether he knew at the time of the election campaign that there is a prohibition on publishing material containing incorrect facts relating to the personal character of a candidate. He replied that he did. Mr Laddie asked if he had read the Electoral Commission guidance on this matter at the time of the election campaign. He replied that, thanks to his involvement in the previous government, he was aware of what was contained within this guidance. Mr Laddie asked Mr Woolas whether he was aware that these regulations exist to protect the electorate, and not the candidate. He replied that he was aware of this.

Mr Laddie asked Mr Woolas whether, on reflection, he felt that any of his publications contained examples of deceit. Mr Woolas replied that he did not.

Mr Laddie then went on to ask Mr Woolas about a picture that appeared on the front page of The Examiner. Mr Laddie asked Mr Woolas whether he agreed that this picture was “doctored”. Mr Woolas replied that he did not, preferring to call it a “superimposition”. Mr Woolas was asked again whether it was a “doctored” photo. He replied that he rejected this term, and that it is clear to a reader what it is.

Mr Laddie asked Mr Woolas whether he accepts that the background photo is of officers from the Metropolitan Police. Mr Woolas replied that he wasn’t aware of this. Mr Laddie suggested to Mr Woolas that this photograph had been altered for his own electoral purposes. Mr Woolas replied that it had been, and that it had been done to highlight a particular message. What message? Mr Laddie asked. Mr Woolas replied that its aim was to highlight the alleged hypocrisy of Mr Watkins, whom he alleged had previously called for the prosecution of people who flout minimum wage laws.

Mr Laddie again asked whether Mr Woolas agreed that this is a “doctored” photo. Mr Woolas replied that “it is what it is”. Mr Woolas was asked whether he considers this picture to be deceitful. He replied that he didn’t.

Mr Woolas suggested that it would be clear to someone reading the front page of The Examiner that this image was an altered image.

Mr Laddie asked whether Mr Woolas believes that the average voter, glancing at this leaflet, would see clearly that the photo is altered. Mr Woolas replied that he did.

Mr Laddie read out a quote from Mr Woolas from 2005, when Mr Woolas suggested that his Liberal Democrat opponent was not suitable to be an MP because he allegedly “altered” a photo on an election leaflet. Mr Woolas said that in the present case it was “clear” that this image was two different photos, and that it was therefore materially different from the allegation he made in 2005.

Mr Woolas was asked why he believed people would be able to tell that this image was altered. Mr Woolas replied that they would because of the “sharpness” of the image of Mr Watkins compared to the stock photo of the police. He said that there was an “electronic difference” between the images.

Mr Laddie invited Mr Woolas to put himself in the position of an ordinary voter, and contended that if he did so he would find it “fanciful” to think that it would be clear that this photo is altered. Mr Woolas replied that he did not believe this was “fanciful”.

Mr Laddie then moved on to questioning Mr Woolas about the two reports that have been published as a result of the race riots that took place in Oldham in 2001. Mr Laddie drew Mr Woolas’ attention to a number of passages from the Ritchie report and the Cantle report, and asked him to say whether or not he agreed with them.

Mr Laddie then questioned Mr Woolas on the contents of a ‘diary’ that was published in The Independent after the election, and contained details of Mr Woolas’ feelings during the election campaign. Mr Laddie, stating that Mr Watkins had repeatedly requested the full diary as disclosure evidence – yet did not receive such a diary – asked of the whereabouts of this diary. Responding that it was in the House of Commons, Mr Woolas further stated he would need to consult counsel as to whether this could be submitted for legal evidence.

Mr Laddie referenced a diary passage in which Mr Woolas stated that he believed his chances were slim because the Tories selected an Asian candidate, and a further passage in which he stated that he was convinced he was going to lose because of his implication in the MPs’ expenses scandal. Mr Laddie contended that a significant change of attitude is discernible after The Examiner and mailshot election address had been sent to voters. Mr Woolas replied that a number of factors had led to an improvement in his mood, such as an improvement in the weather.

The case continues tomorrow, beginning with the conclusion of Mr Woolas’ cross-examination.

P.S. Because this is an ongoing court case, I’ve switched off the comment facility for the time being.

The following is a summary of the case being presented by Elwyn Watkins in a special Election Court sitting in Oldham.

The case is being brought under Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (RPA 1983), which covers:

(1) A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—

(a) before or during an election,

(b) for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election, makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true.

(2) A candidate shall not be liable nor shall his election be avoided for any illegal practice under subsection (1) above committed by his agent other than his election agent unless—

(a) it can be shown that the candidate or his election agent has authorised or consented to the committing of the illegal practice by the other agent or has paid for the circulation of the false statement constituting the illegal practice; or

(b) an election court find and report that the election of the candidate was procured or materially assisted in consequence of the making or publishing of such false statements.

Since Mr Woolas has accepted responsibility for the statements made on his behalf which form the basis of the case, the remaining issues in relation to each allegation of section 106 of the RPA 1983 are the following:

1. What did the statement mean to the audience to whom it was addressed?
2. Was it a statement of fact?
3. Did the statement relate to the personal character or conduct of the petitioner [Mr Watkins]?
4. Was the statement false?
5. Can the person or persons making or publishing the statement show that they had reasonable grounds for believing it to be true?
6. Can the person or persons (Phil Woolas) making or publishing the statement show that in fact they did believe it to be true?

The statements in question

There are five statements that form the basis of Mr Watkins’ case. Each one of these, it is argued, is in breach of section 106 of RPA 1983. In order to be successful, Mr Watkins must prove beyond reasonable doubt that one of the following statements satisfies all of the six conditions set out above. The following are the statements which Mr Watkins will present, along with the publication in which they were contained:

1. Associating with Extremists – from The Examiner
2. Associating with Extremists – from The Rose
3. Electoral Offences in Connection with Expenses/Corruption – from The Examiner
4. Electoral Offences in Connection with Expenses/Corruption – from The Rose
5. Reneging on a Promise – The Mailshot

It would take too much space to go into detail on each of the above statements, so instead I have reproduced, as pictures, the relevant part of the leaflets in question, along with a link to where you can find a copy of the leaflet online. Clicking on the image in each case will enlarge it.

1. Associating with Extremists – from The Examiner

See the leaflet HERE.

2. Associating with Extremists – from The Rose

(N.B. The whole front page of this leaflet is in question.)

See the leaflet HERE & HERE.

3. Electoral Offences in Connection with Expenses/Corruption – from The Examiner

(Again, the whole page of this leaflet is in question)

See the leaflet HERE.

4. Electoral Offences in Connection with Expenses/Corruption – from The Rose

See the leaflet HERE & HERE.

5. Reneging on a Promise - The Mailshot

See the leaflet HERE.

Phil Woolas denies all the accusations.

With a special election court due to begin sitting in Oldham East and Saddleworth on Monday to decide whether Phil Woolas broke election law in statements made about his opponent, it seems Labour are already preparing to lose the case.

I have it on good authority that Labour have already begun telephone canvassing voters in the constituency from their central phone-bank. This could, of course, be entirely unrelated to the imminent court case, but that seems to me to be unlikely at this stage in an election cycle.

You could argue that it is a perfectly reasonable precaution for Labour to have started telephone canvassing, but it would suggest to me that the party must think there is a relatively high chance that Phil Woolas could be found guilty of an offence, and that there will be another election in Oldham East and Saddleworth soon.

I’ve never been Phil Woolas’s biggest fan. Quite the opposite, in fact.

But he managed to fall even further down in my estimations in May’s election campaign. His narrow election victory will now be subject to a legal challenge from his Lib Dem opponent, Elwyn Watkins, who was the subject of various fallacious claims in leaflets distributed by the Woolas campaign.

I was reading through the some of these leaflets last night, and there’s much to shock and disgust. The following stuck out to me as particularly disgusting (from a ‘Labour Rose’ leaflet sent out the day before the election):

Extremist rant as Phil Woolas defies death threats

Extremist groups from outside Oldham East and Saddleworth have made death threats against Phil whilst extremist groups inside the constituency have threatened him with violence on our streets.

Sick competitions

One extremist website has even created a competition for the most imaginative way to kill Phil Woolas.

You would think that any serious would condemn such action.

But you’d be wrong

Lib Dem pact with the devil

One of these groups has endorsed the Liberal Democrat candidate Elwyn Watkins.

It is remarkable that neither he nor any other Liberal Democrat has rejected this endorsement or condemned the group’s actions.

Maybe it’s because the Liberal Democrats are giving amnesty to thousands of illegal immigrants. (My emphasis)

The moderate, hard working people of Oldham will be outraged by these fanatics bringing threats of intimidation and violence to our doorsteps.

Yes, that’s right – the Lib Dems cosying up to extremists because of their plan to give an earned amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Any Labour supporters want to defend this?

Thought not.

P.S. You can see the initial petition submitted by Elwyn Watkins, along with the offending leaflets (including the one I detail above) HERE, HERE & HERE