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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll