header-logo header-logo

12 April 2016
Issue: 7694 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Controversial EU leaflet drop "not unlawful"

Referendum mail-out is within the law

The government’s EU referendum leaflet, which dropped through the nation’s letterboxes this week, may have provoked ire in some quarters but it was not unlawful according to a legal academic.

Neil Parpworth, principal lecturer, Leicester De Montfort Law School, says: “More than 200,000 people have signed an online petition demanding that the government desist from spending public money on a pro-EU leaflet due to land on our doormats shortly.

“Despite these objections, and putting to one side issues of fairness, posting out the leaflets will not be unlawful. Section 125(1)(c) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 imposes a restriction on the publication of any material by central government which ‘puts any arguments for or against any particular answer’ to a referendum question.

Although it clearly applies to the EU leaflets, crucially the restriction on publication is only effective during the ‘relevant period’, ie 28 days ending with the date of the poll (23 June). Accordingly, so long as the purdah period is respected, there seems to be no legal basis on which the government’s actions can be successfully challenged.”

The controversial leaflet cost £9.3m to produce and send out. Leave campaigners branded the exercise a waste of public money, but the government has defended its action on the basis the public have called for more information to help them make their minds up. A petition opposing the leaflet has attracted more than 200,000 signatures.

Michael Nash, who teaches at the University of East Anglia’s Norwich Business School, says: “The French Referendum on the implementation of the Treaty of Maastricht is a good example here.

“This was held on 20 September 1992, and resulted in a 51% majority of approval. Before the referendum, a copy of the Treaty was distributed to every home in France, at great expense, and many of the copies went straight into the dustbin.”

Issue: 7694 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll