header-logo header-logo

Controversial EU leaflet drop "not unlawful"

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll