No place like home

Tanveer Qureshi achieved a not guilty verdict in the case of electoral malpractice brought against a council leader at Liverpool Crown Court earlier this month. Here he details the complexities of the case including the validity of a candidate’s address during the election process.

The complexities and procedural requirements of local and general elections can even extend to the question of a candidate’s home address. What might appear to many to be a relatively straightforward question can spark intense debate and in some cases prompt accusations of corruption and even criminal proceedings.

§65A of the Representation of Peoples Act 1982 makes it a criminal offence for a person to declare a false address (when providing information to a returning officer about a candidate).

According to The College of Policing, questions about the validity of a candidate’s address is a common allegation - rival candidates can typically prompt a police investigation. What one declares as their home address is important. It can determine a person’s eligibility to stand, but in some cases a candidate may use a particular address because of the political expediency of being seen to be part of the community.

Problems can arise where a person is associated with two addresses, perhaps because he/she has moved out temporarily from their permanent address and/or whilst they live somewhere else, they treat another address as their home address.

The question of what a home address means was the subject of much debate between the prosecution and defence when the leader of Warrington Borough Council, Mr Russell Bowden, was alleged to have declared a false home address during the May 2021 Warrington Borough Council election.

At all material times, Mr Bowden owned, paid the mortgage, and had various possessions stored within his matrimonial home. He had the keys to the property and he could come and go as he pleased. The prosecute did not dispute any of this.

Mr Bowden regarded the matrimonial home as his permanent home address. Mr Bowden declared this address as his home address. The prosecution alleged he had done so falsely, the prosecution suggested because Mr Bowden was living in rented accommodation at the time, had registered his vehicle to that address and was paying council tax there, he should never have declared his matrimonial home as his home address.

Owing to difficulties in his marriage, prior to the election, Mr Bowden moved out of the matrimonial home for what was intended to be a short period of time whilst seeking to repair his marriage. He moved into rental accommodation. Divorce was looming but Mr Bowden always sought a reconciliation with his wife and intended to return to his matrimonial home.

By May 2021, he had lived in his rented accommodation for just under 21 months, but in that time, the marriage had improved considerably. Divorce was no longer being pursued. At the time he lodged his nomination form, Mr Bowden’s visits to the property were as many 2- 3 nights a week.

During his absence from the matrimonial home, Mr Bowden registered at the rental accommodation for the purposes of council tax, his electoral address which at all times was at the matrimonial home, did not change.  Of note here is the following:

1. Where a person lives for the purposes of council tax is not determinative of where their address is for the purposes of the electoral register.

2. The guidance from the Electoral Commission makes this clear:

“….Residence has a particular meaning in electoral law and is not equivalent to residence for other purposes such as income tax and council tax”

3. The Guidance continues to make clear that the circumstances of a person must be considered

4. The defence argued a home address need not be limited to a place where one is simply living and sleeping each night and/or ordinarily domiciled. Subject to a person’s circumstances, if a person intends to return to an address, that address can be treated as their home address for the purposes of the electoral register.

The jury were not persuaded with the prosecution’s argument and unanimously found Mr Bowden not guilty. There is still no legal definition of home address. The closest one gets to a definition is the Electoral Commission’s full guidance which also makes clear that the mere fact one has moved out of an address temporarily does not deprive that person of declaring another address as his/her home address.

Similarly, in some cases, it may be wholly inappropriate to declare an address where one is living and sleeping each night as their home address if one regards the address as a temporary address. Ultimately, it is a question of fact based on a person’s circumstances.

The experience of this case suggests, when choosing a home address, one must do so with great care. The circumstances of a person’s living arrangement must be fully documented and considered as part of any discussions with political agents. Where there is a doubt, one should always consult the Electoral Commission, and this too must be documented. Where allegations are made, its essential that expert advice is obtained at the earliest opportunity.

Tanveer Qureshi is a barrister at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square and successfully represented Mr Bowden at his trial before Liverpool Crown Court. He was instructed by Mandip Kumar of Precedence Law.