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

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

Senior appointments in insurance services and commercial services announced

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Aviation disputes practice strengthened by London partner hire

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Residential property lawyer promoted to partnership

NEWS
he abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC
Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll