Cllr Peter Golds is a councillor in Tower Hamlets. He has served as a London councillor for 25 years. He is a former Treasurer of the Conservative Councillor’s Association.
“In terms of the allegation of multiple voting, all of the suspects accepted they had voted on several occasions – however this was in the genuinely held belief that this was permissible under the terms of the referendum.”
Is this quotation from the press report of the defence submission in a trial? Is it from a witness statement prepared by a defence lawyer? No, it is from a letter signed by a senior police officer holding the rank of Detective Inspector once again exonerating electoral malpractice in Tower Hamlets on the grounds that there is “insufficient evidence of any criminal offence having taken place.”
It is illegal for an individual to cast multiple votes in a referendum, as in any election (unless one is acting as a proxy). This is a matter of law. Breaking that law is an offence.
In November 2021, a referendum was held in the Spitalfields area of Tower Hamlets to approve a Neighbourhood Plan. By that date, over 1,400 such referendums had been held nationwide and such is the complexity of producing a Neighbourhood Plan, that fewer than ten had been rejected in the referendum.
The Spitalfields Plan had been over six years in the making and had been commended by an Independent Inspector and approved by the council’s administration. The plan covers an area that includes many historic locations. However, a major business covering a huge and significant local site was not supportive. Because of the complexities of the plan there were two votes, a residential vote and a business vote. The local authority identified over 800 local businesses qualified to vote and all were sent letters inviting them to do so. In the event, 132 local businesses registered to vote. In the poll, 89 votes were cast, one vote was rejected and the business vote was 80 against the plan and 18 in favour. Significantly, 48 business votes were cast from the complex where the person opposing the plan had a controlling interest and, as will be seen, it was quickly established, thirteen of these were illegally cast by four people.
On the day, residents voted in favour of the plan and Tower Hamlets was responsible for yet another unwanted first. The split result meant the ultimate decision would be a vote by councillors.
By referendum day other examples of malpractice were known and immediately afterwards residents and campaigners undertook their own investigations. The infringements were multiple voting, illegal literature published without an imprint, and overspending by a campaign organisation.
First I will go through the process taken to identify the multiple voting.
I attended the electoral registration office with others and we exercised our legal right to examine the marked registers. We were supervised at all times and in accordance with the law, entitled to make notes. Six people on the business register had between them cast 19 votes, four of these voting thirteen votes from business addresses located within the complex I have referred to above.
When the council identified the over 800 qualifying businesses, all received an invitation to register to vote which states in the section headed “Why I have been consulted”:
“Ratepayers have one vote each regardless of the number of properties they are liable to pay rates on.”
The next stage is to apply to vote and that form contains the similar warning.
Having registered, the business voter will receive a poll card which again contains a warning that they are only entitled to one vote, and if they vote by post there is yet another warning.
The businessman with the controlling interest in the major development alone filled in and signed each of these forms five times, to secure five votes. Every one of these forms includes the warning that he could only legally cast one business vote. He also, according to the official records, voted both by post and in person and would therefore have received five poll cards, again with the warning that he could only vote once, and further warnings with the postal vote cards, which confirm that it is unlawful to cast more than one vote as a business voter.
He is listed as a director of seventeen companies in the current Companies House register, thirteen are active. It is inconceivable that a person with his business experience, used to dealing with complicated business and financial matters would not have read the warnings on the forms that he completed to register to vote.
All six of those who cast multiple votes would have gone through the same process with the various forms warning them they could only register and vote once in the business referendum.
Turning now to the issue of the leaflets without an imprint. The week before the referendum, a glossy leaflet opposing the plan had been delivered by Royal Mail to every post box in the area of the referendum, whether or not there was a business or residential voter. The leaflets were printed in colour to an A5 specification. One side was printed in English and the other printed in Bangla. The leaflets advocated a No vote on grounds that were irrelevant to a Neighbourhood Plan and indeed had racist overtones. The leaflets bore no imprint and the only identification as to the publisher was at the bottom saying it was from a local man, well known as a self-appointed “community leader.”
The leaflets were distributed in a white envelope on which was printed “Delivered by Royal Mail”. Postage Paid GB LS797 and a large number 1 indicating first class postage. Under Royal Mail regulations they included a return address to the company that had produced them.
This matter of illegal leaflets became publicly known by way of social media, and on the day of the referendum some leaflets were circulated, this time with the required imprint including the promoter and publisher. These were circulated by hand and would not have reached every address.
I checked three different sources regarding imprints. The electoral commission provides advice on the provision of imprints as follows:
“All printed election campaign material needs an imprint, including newspaper and billboard advertising.”
There is also a House of Commons Research Paper on imprints and referendums stating:
“There is a legal requirement that campaign material should include an imprint of who has published the material to ensure voters can identify the source of the campaign literature.”
The law is spelt out in detail in the guidelines from the College of Policing, which I also looked at.
I examined S110 of the RP Act of 1983 regarding the illegal practice of failing to include the name and address of both the printer and promoter of a campaign leaflet. For the record, this law as (included in the 1983 Act) has never been repealed.
These leaflets were illegal.
I finally checked the regulations published by the electoral commission as to campaign expenditure limits for this referendum and established that this was £2,650 based on the registered business and residential voters.
Royal Mail has a delivery service to addresses, which is primarily used by businesses, but was used on this occasion for political campaign purposes. Costs are calculated to a specific area identified by Royal Mail known as portals, each envelope having to be addressed to all properties within the portal, whether or not the address has a registered voter, meaning letters were sent to empty properties or those with no voters. As I was not, in 2021, a commercial customer of Royal Mail, I made a calculation as to the cost of each letter based on experience. I calculated this at 75p per envelope. The three portals within the Neighbourhood plan area have 8,413 addresses equating to a cost of £6,309.75. A first class stamp purchased “over the counter” cost 85p in 2021.The more commercial postings sent, the greater the discount, but the cost of Royal Mail distribution via the portals would have been close to 75p per envelope. This is before, printing, design, mail merging, and costs to the distribution company are included.
The Police were provided with actual copies of envelopes sent to portals to confirm the existence of the posted communications. They had the name of the company that had produced the leaflets and the contact details of the “community leader.”
Residents provided the police with information and eventually one person was invited to make a statement. Despite being one of the voters in the council decision, the police ignored correspondence from me after a dismissive response to my initial raising of concerns.
Eventually, after 18 months, an email was sent on the eve of the Coronation and over a bank holiday weekend. The police officer in charge of the investigation wrote to the chair of the forum saying there was insufficient evidence of any criminal offence having taken place and the investigation was concluded.
The reason for the delay in writing this piece is because there was a Judicial Review, launched by residents, regarding the ultimate council decision and this was before the High Court. Judgement is now awaited on that subject.
The police officer, in dismissing the allegations regarding multiple voting, refers to a Statutory Implement amending Neighbourhood Plan Regulations 2013. On the Government website, no less, it says the draft was never implemented and refers enquirers to the correct Statutory Instrument, implemented in 2014. Tower Hamlets Council’s electoral services followed this to the letter and all the forms relating to registration and voting align with those in the SI. It should be noted that all include the warnings against multiple voting. Expecting problems, the council kept copies of the forms they produced and I have added these to my detailed response to the commissioner regarding the closure letter.
Despite the law being absolute with regard to imprints the police officer writes “the imprint issue was corrected and a compliant version was distributed.” This is a rewriting of long established election law. Thousands of illegal leaflets were distributed to every letter box in the referendum area. Many agents and candidates over the years have faced courts for errors in imprints, but it now appears, not if an illegal leaflet is distributed in Tower Hamlets. How has this decision, which rewrites the law, come about?
With regard to the matter of illegal expenditure, the police “response” gives no reason as to how the investigation costed the election expenses, which is a matter of considerable dispute. Did the investigation rely simply on invoices provided by the company which had produced the leaflets? Was the cost of the post office delivery (by portal) taken into consideration? Did the police contact Royal Mail?
The new Met Commissioner must be more than aware of the longstanding concerns between electoral practitioners and observers in Tower Hamlets and the Metropolitan Police regarding the failure to resolve the numerous incidents of electoral fraud and malpractice that have been endemic in the borough over the past two decades. This failure, unfortunately, adds to the many problems that he faces regarding the damaged reputation of the Metropolitan Police.
Therefore, Sir Mark has been asked to reinvestigate this matter. In view of the lack of confidence in the Metropolitan Police to deal with it, this investigation should be undertaken by a team of officers from another force who might be able to restore electoral integrity in this borough.
Sadly such is the current situation, that confidence locally is completely threadbare.