Reform UK’s candidate for the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election has escaped a fine for leaflets that failed to include the party’s imprint, after a High Court judge accepted it was the result of a printing error.
A letter from “a local pensioner” distributed for Reform UK appeared to break election law because it failed to state it had been funded and distributed by the party.
The letter, addressed from “concerned neighbour” Patricia Clegg, explained why she is no longer voting for Labour and has switched her vote to Nigel Farage’s party.
Under the Representation of the People Act 1983, election material must include the name and address of those promoted by the document, the promoter, and the printer. A failure to do so risks a £5,000 fine and a three-year disqualification from elective office.
But in a ruling handed down on Wednesday, Mr Justice Butcher said he was “satisfied” that Reform’s candidate Matt Goodwin and his election agent, Adam Rawlinson, should not be sanctioned for the rule breach and had taken “appropriate steps to put it right”.
It came after lawyers for Reform UK admitted that the leaflet was sent to 81,000 people before the issue was raised.
GB News presenter Mr Goodwin is standing for the party in the by-election on Thursday, with Reform attempting to win a seat Labour held with more than 50 per cent of the vote in the general election.
At a hearing last week, lawyers acting for him and Mr Rawlinson told the High Court that some of Mr Goodwin’s election leaflets failed to include a “statutory imprint”, which constituted “inadvertent illegal practice”.
At a subsequent hearing on Wednesday, they asked the court to rule that they do not have to face a fine of up to £5,000 for what their barrister described as an “honest administrative error” caused by the company which printed the leaflets.
In a statement earlier this month, the printer Reform commissioned to produce the leaflet took responsibility for the error, with a spokesperson for Hardings Print Solutions Limited saying: "Reform UK did not request or authorise the removal of the imprint. The omission arose from Hardings Printers’ production process.
"The party supplied artwork which correctly included the legally required imprint, and a compliant proof was produced and approved.”
Meanwhile, a Reform spokesman said: “The campaign commissioned a letter from a local constituent, which was supplied to our print contractor with the full and correct legal imprint, fully compliant with election law.
“Print-ready proofs were provided by the supplier and approved by the campaign. Those proofs clearly included the legal imprint in the correct form.”
Delivering a verdict on Wednesday, Mr Justice Butcher said: “I am satisfied that the relevant act or omission arose from inadvertence or some other reasonable cause of a like nature, and did not arise from a want of good faith... The evidence satisfies me that during production, an error occurred due to a change of font.”
The judge added: “I am satisfied that that was neither requested nor authorised by the claimants.”
Adam Richardson, for Mr Goodwin and Mr Rawlinson, told the court in London that the draft versions of the leaflet sent between Mr Goodwin’s team and the printers, Hardings Print Solutions, all included the imprint and were checked “in the usual way multiple times”.
He continued that “for reasons known only to themselves, Hardings decided to put on a different font at the last minute”.
He said: “Had [Mr Goodwin and Mr Rawlinson] known that was going to take place, they would have prevented it.”
The barrister also said: “It should not have been done, it was not requested, it is unclear why it did happen, but as a result of that, the imprint was truncated off the bottom.”
In written submissions, the barrister said that his clients should not be sanctioned as the rule breach was “limited in scope, technical in nature, and had no material impact on the election”.
He continued that the Act allows a judge to order that a person should not face consequences for “illegal practice” if it arose from “inadvertence or from accidental miscalculation” and “did not arise from any want of good faith”.
The Crown Prosecution Service and the acting returning officer for the by-election had been made aware of the issue, the barrister said.
He told the court: “Without relief, they face the risk of criminal prosecution, a fine, a three-year disqualification from elective office, and, if Mr Goodwin were elected, potential invalidation of the result.”
Lawyers on behalf of the acting returning officer attended the hearing, but made no representations, and no other party was represented.
Mandelson scandal will be ‘defining moment’ of Starmer tenure, says Badenoch - latest
There is more at stake with the Gorton and Denton by-election than Starmer’s future
UK leader Starmer faces an electoral test after Epstein fallout shakes his grip on power
Inside the Gorton and Denton by-election, where anything could happen
Starmer pauses Chagos Islands deal after Trump criticism
Hoyle tells MPs he tipped off police about Mandelson flight risk
