The High Court has given permission for a judicial review of the Electoral Commission’s oversight of Vote Leave Ltd’s spending in the run-up to the June 2016 EU referendum, in R (The Good Law Project) v Electoral Commission and Vote Leave Ltd [2018] EWHC 602 (Admin).
The case is being brought by The Good Law Project, a pro bono project launched by Devereux Chambers’ Jolyon Maugham QC last year. It centres on donations by Vote Leave in the final weeks of the Referendum campaign, during which £625,000 was spent with Aggregate IQ, a small Canadian firm in Victoria, British Columbia, by Brighton fashion student Darren Grimes. The Good Law Project disputes Vote Leave’s statement that it donated the money to Grimes and therefore it does not count as election-related spending. If counted, Vote Leave would have exceeded the statutory spending cap.
The High Court said the Good Law Project’s claim that the Electoral Commission had misinterpreted and failed to correctly apply the relevant statutory provisions (regarding the meaning of ‘expenses incurred’ in the the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000) the threshold test of being ‘arguable’. It rejected two other grounds put forward by Good Law.
Maugham said the matter would be listed for a full hearing no later than mid-July.
Meanwhile, law firm Bindmans says it has received counsel’s opinion that there are grounds to suspect criminal offences may have been committed regarding the £625,000 donation to a small youth group, BeLeave, which Vote Leave allegedly worked with.
Representatives of Vote Leave strongly deny that they worked with BeLeave and say they complied fully with the law.
