The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Phil Woolas loses legal bid to overturn his ejection from Commons

High court upholds charges of “illegal practices” against disgraced former immigration minister.

By Samira Shackle Published 03 December 2010 13:44

Phil Woolas has failed in his effort to overturn the court decision removing him from parliament on the grounds of "corrupt practices".

Three high court judges have rejected his attempt to contest the conclusion of the specially convened election court which found that he had made false statements about his Liberal Democrat opponent in the May election, Elwyn Watkins.

Woolas – who published leaflets in his Oldham constituency specifically designed to "get the white folks angry" – argued that the court's interpretation of the law interfered with his freedom of speech.

However, today Lord Justice Thomas, Mr Justice Tugendhat and Mrs Justice Nicola Davies upheld the election court's ruling, saying that although one of the findings could be set aside, Woolas had still committed "illegal practice".

It is just the latest blow to Woolas's attempt to overturn the ruling. Early last month, the high court rejected his first request for a judicial review of the case.

As my colleague George Eaton noted last month, some of Woolas's apologists in Labour claim the court's decision could "chill" political freedom – a worrying position, given that he was found to be telling outright lies about his opponent.

Perhaps an apology is too much to ask for, but one must hope that Woolas – who has been suspended from the Labour Party – will now allow the matter to rest.

Tags: Phil Woolas

More from Samira Shackle

View the discussion thread.

10 comments

Sun, 2010-12-05 08:48 — jie4v7i14

Fascism is alive and well. What a joke. This is a disgrace- Phil Woolas should be still MP of said constituency.

Tory canoe friends.

For Phil;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxYYlLGGOUA

Sun, 2010-12-05 08:54 — jie4v7i14

Next welsh MP that pops his cloggs, get in there Phil, you are in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeEMdh6bU8M&feature=fvst

Sun, 2010-12-05 08:59 — jie4v7i14

More Marsheaux, in the Rapeseed Fields, of life...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeEMdh6bU8M&feature=fvst

Sun, 2010-12-05 09:02 — jie4v7i14

CRAP! More Marsheaux, in the Rapeseed Fields, of life...

fuck NS above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsXtF-coNtg

Sun, 2010-12-05 09:10 — jie4v7i14

yes,she is a paraplegic rapeseed armed woman, as like your new future idea of olypics BBC. As fucking if!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa0FOPmnP4A

Sun, 2010-12-05 09:29 — jie4v7i14

Ah well Phil, time to do other things...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIgjnmDmTBA

Fri, 2010-12-03 13:51 — swatantra

Phil is no John Wilkes and should give it a rest. Otherwise this saga could drag on and on rather like the pregnant chads saga some years ago in America. The Courts are the ultimate arbiter on whether the election was run fairly or not whether you like their decision or not.

Fri, 2010-12-03 14:08 — Dave C (not verified)

One can't helping thinking that Woolas and his campaign team was a case of 'groupthink': no-one presented a contrary view or, if they did, they were ignored.

Fri, 2010-12-03 14:55 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

In the last century or so, the electorate decided, restricted or not, to elect slave owners, landowners, criminals and other sorts in this constitutional monarchy and other forms of democracy. Hitler and his party received the majority vote of the German Volk. Surprised Hitler harked back to the Roman Empire which did everything in its power to exclude rude barbarians. Of course, tribal leaders accepted the bribes.
Let the electorate decide - not the courts. The courts are not value for money, besides having a restricted intake. They are lobby-fodder for the elite. Down thorough the years, most courts seem to have decided in favour of the monarch or the establishment. However, the Supreme[Supine] Court in the UK or the USA usually bows to popular pressure in the end - when it has no other option.
Remember the most effective television political slot ever? LBJ's little girl with her daisy. Sarah Palin is vulnerable to the same treatment. When it comes to a showdown every Westerner's a pussy.
Hanging Judge

Fri, 2010-12-03 16:16 — Graeme (not verified)

The court was wrong, and has no right to strike out an election, or ban a democrat. We cannot have judges telling the voters they are wrong.

If some untrue statements were made, well almost every election could be accused of this.

If there were lies made in this case - what difference did it make? How many voters were influenced, read the publications, and cast their vote as a result.

Only a new election can decide - perhaps. Even then, we all know that the LibDems has NO chance of being elected again in Oldham.

But, in a less than perfect world, a new election is the best we can have. I hope to see MPs working to change this useless and undemocratic law.