Judgment in our Supreme Court Appeal The Judgment of the Supreme Court in this case was given today, written by Lord Stephens with the agreement of the other Judges.

The full Judgment and Press Summary can be found here https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2020-0129.html 

 Unfortunately, my appeal was dismissed. The court found that the 2019 Voter ID pilots were covered by the Representation of the People Act 2000 i.e. that the wording of the legislation was broad enough to cover the introduction of voter ID in the 2019 pilot schemes. The Supreme Court found that the phrase ‘how voting at the elections is to take place’ includes procedures for demonstrating entitlement to vote, which gives the Government the power to legally run the pilot schemes requiring Voter ID for the local elections in 2019. The Judges also found that the pilot schemes were ‘authorised for a lawful purpose’, as they ‘enabled gathering of information to assist in the modernisation of electoral procedures’.

I am very disappointed by the outcome, but the fact that the Supreme Court decided to hear the case reflects the importance of the issues. I remain determined to fight and campaign against any future moves to make it a legal requirement to present ID at the polling station, as I am convinced the change will prevent and deter people from voting and presents a threat to our democracy. In response to the Judgment my Lawyer, Tessa Gregory at Leigh Day, said: “The case presented an opportunity for the court to recognise the right to vote in local elections as a constitutional right, but the court instead focused on the wording of the legislation at issue and found that it was broad enough to cover the introduction of voter ID in pilot schemes.”

Although this is not the outcome we hoped for, I would like to thank everyone who has supported my efforts through donations and comments. We have demonstrated with this case how fiercely we will resist any restriction on our right to vote, and the Crowdfunder has demonstrated the strength of public opinion on this important issue. The funds will be used to pay court costs, a limited amount of the Defendant’s costs as we have lost the case, and some of my lawyer’s costs who agreed to work at heavily discounted rates. I could not have brought this challenge without your support and so again, thank you all.

Our legal argument 

• The right to vote in local government elections is a constitutional right and the Court of Appeal was wrong not to rule that it can only be restricted by clear words in a statute. There are no crystal clear words in Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 which indicate that government ministers can give local government officials the power to turn away voters if they do not have ID
• Section 10 of the 2000 Act does not permit pilot schemes requiring voters to produce ID before they can be allowed to vote
• The pilot schemes requiring voter ID are not in line with the purpose of the 2000 Act to encourage voting and make it easier

Our Supporters

Several organisations have been given permission to intervene in the appeal. The case is supported by LGBT Foundation and Stonewall. They say voter identification requirements are especially likely to disadvantage people who are trans and/or non-binary.

The case is also supported by Runnymede Trust, Operation Black Vote and Voice4Change England who point out that access to identity documents has a stark racial dimension. In the pilot schemes, the Electoral Commission found evidence of a disparate racial impact in three of the four areas where demographic analysis was possible.

Neil has said:

“Despite all of the moves to make it a legal requirement to present ID at the polling station, I am still convinced that the change will prevent and deter people from voting and as a result lead to fewer people taking part in the democratic process. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court judges will agree with my legal team’s arguments.”

Neil's lawyer Tessa Gregory, has said:

“We look forward to presenting our client’s case in the Supreme Court.
"The case presents an important opportunity for the court to recognise the right to vote in local elections as a constitutional right and to ensure that any restrictions on the right are only imposed by Parliament.”

Mr Coughlan is represented by Tessa Gregory and Carolin Ott of Leigh Day; Tony Peto QC, Natasha Simonsen of Blackstone Chambers, and Sarah Sackman of Matrix Chambers.

Since my last update in July, my case on the legality of the Government’s 2019 Voter ID pilots has been moving forward apace in preparation for my appeal to The Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court appeal will be heard on 15 February 2022, amidst increasing public concern about the Government’s series of policies designed to expand executive power at the expense of our democratic safeguards. 

You can watch the proceedings live here.

Or after the event here. 

As a reminder or for those who are new to this Crowdfunder, my case challenges the legality of the Government’s Voter ID pilots, which tested the requirement of Voter ID to participate in Local Government Elections in ten local authorities in 2019. Almost 1,000 people were turned away from the polling station because they didn’t have the correct ID.

The Government subsequently drafted a Bill, the Elections Bill, to implement Voter ID requirements for all elections, creating the capacity to disenfranchise millions.  

The Elections Bill passed the third reading in the House of Commons on 17 January, was heard at the House of Lords 1^st Reading on 18 January 2022 and is awaiting scheduling for a second reading where the Lords will debate the Bill. In addition to requiring Voter ID for elections, the Bill would also allow the executive to control access to Voter ID by regulating the application process for voter identification (Sch 1, para 2 of HC Bill 178).

Both Scottish and Welsh governments have already refused to give legislative consent for the Elections Bill. 

The Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (‘PCAC’) – a cross party group – has urged the Government to stop the passage of the Elections Bill. A report from the Committee stated:

 ‘The process of carrying out elections in the UK, the ease with which members of the electorate can cast their vote, and the trust that is shown in and by the electorate in general is admirable and crucial tenet of our democratic process. These arrangements should be cherished and protected, and great care must be taken whenever consideration is given to altering them.’

Chair of the committee, William Wragg (Conservative MP for Hazel Grove), said:

‘We feel the elections bill proposals lack a sufficient evidence base, timely consultation and transparency, all of which should be addressed before it makes any further progress. We cannot risk any reduction of trust in UK elections, which is why the majority of Commons is calling for the Bill to be paused to give time for more work to be done to ensure the measures are fit for purpose.’

Labour has estimated that mandatory Voter ID will cost £40 million in taxpayer money over a decade. The 2018 pilot cost £1.7million and the second pilot cost £1.9million. 

Five organisations representing people who would be particularly impacted by these proposals have been given permission by the court to intervene in the case, meaning they can make written submissions that the court can consider in its deliberations. These organisations are Operation Black Vote, the Runnymede Trust, Voice4Change England, Stonewall and The LGBT Foundation.

Reading through the comments of those who have already kindly donated to make our legal challenge possible, it is clear that many, many people feel as strongly about this infringement of our democratic rights as I do. As we gear up for our Supreme Court hearing, my legal team have a lot of work to do and I am thankful for all of your support. 

Please share on Twitter using the hashtag #SayNotoVoterID     

The ‘Electoral Integrity Bill’ was introduced in Parliament for a First Reading on July 5^th.

The full bill, with details of Voter Identification requirements at Schedule 1, and a summary of the measures are now available online. At the time of this update, the date of the Second Reading when the main principles of the Bill will be debated by MPs in the House of Commons has yet to be announced. In bringing forth the legislation the Government are relying on the pilots carried out in 2018 and 2019 which we argue were unlawful.

The Bill claims that it will ‘strengthen the integrity of the electoral process’ but in fact seeks to do the opposite - creating unnecessary obstacles to the democratic freedoms we are proud to have in Britain. 

The Bill has drawn criticism from MPs of both parties. Conservative MP for Haltemprice and Howden, David Davis, tweeted his concerns about the Bill on the day of its publication, saying: 

‘Today the Government is presenting the Electoral Integrity Bill to the House. This Bill will contain provisions for Voter ID. Voter ID will potentially disenfranchise thousands of people. It is an illogical and illiberal solution to a non-existent problem’ 

Labour's shadow minister for Democracy, Cat Smith, said in response to the Bill:

"Voter ID is a total waste of taxpayers' money, set to cost millions of pounds at every election.[…] Voting is safe and secure in Britain. Ministers should be promoting confidence in our elections instead of spreading baseless scare stories which threaten our democracy.’[…] "it's using the cover of the pandemic to threaten British democracy. These plans must be stopped."

The Electoral Reform Society has said that the plans could lead to ‘disenfranchisement on an industrial scale’ and the Joint Committee on Human Rights has discussed the Bill.

Now, more than ever, we need to draw attention to this threat to our freedoms as it moves through the House of Commons and we prepare for the hearing of our legal challenge in the Supreme Court.

Thank you for all of your continued support.

Please share on Twitter using the hashtag #SayNotoVoterID 

The Government has said it intends to introduce Bill “at the earliest opportunity” to require voters to produce photographic identification at polling stations in Parliamentary elections in the UK. This Tuesday, the 11^th of May, the Government’s proposals for voter ID were included in the Queen’s Speech for the new Parliamentary session. Speaking on Good Morning Britain, Matt Hancock said the issue was as important as social care in terms of national priorities.

These developments make it clear that my legal case fighting against voter ID proposals since pilot schemes were rolled out in local authorities in 2019 needs to be heard by the Supreme Court urgently. This week, my lawyers at Leigh Day and Blackstone Chambers have submitted an application for my case to be expedited and considered by the Supreme Court as soon as possible. Interveners in the case have also given their support for the case to be heard urgently. 

We have argued that, on this issue of fundamental constitutional importance, Parliament should be informed by the judgment of the Supreme Court as to whether the pilot schemes carried out by the Government were unlawful. It is important for MPs to have the benefit of the judgment when they debate the issue, which goes to the heart of our democracy. 

Your continued support to fund this urgent challenge to the Government rushing these unconstitutional changes through Parliament is vital and much appreciated. 

Neil Coughlan 

I am truly overwhelmed by the magnificent support I have received from all of you regarding my legal campaign to defend our democracy. I have been genuinely moved and inspired by your comments and feel more determined than ever to fight this case on behalf of us all.

Without you, it would not have been possible to bring this case to Court at all, so on behalf of myself and my legal team, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all of you for your generous and vital support.

Regards,

Neil

My ongoing challenge to the Government's plan to require voter ID at polling stations has been given permission to proceed by the Supreme Court! You can read more on this in today's Guardian.

My case was rejected by judges at the Court of Appeal in April 2020, although it was admitted that arguments were ‘finely balanced’. But now my application to have the case heard at the Supreme Court has been successful and the Supreme Court will hear an appeal to the decision of the Court of Appeal. 

My lawyers from Leigh Day and Blackstone Chambers will argue that the Court of Appeal was wrong to dismiss my case on the basis that:  

• The right to vote in local government elections is a constitutional right, so cannot be restricted by general or ambiguous words in legislation. They will argue that the Court of Appeal was wrong to say that a requirement to produce identification at the polling station to satisfy an officer beyond reasonable doubt is not “a restriction on voting at all”, but “is merely a means of trying to ensure that those who vote are entitled to do so”.
• The power under s.10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 permitting experimental changes to “…how voting at the election is to take place” means the physical process, manner or means by which electors communicate their vote and so, contrary to what the Court found, is not wide enough to include showing an entitlement to vote by proving identity. 
• The Court was wrong when it said that measures to combat electoral fraud were consistent with what Parliament intended because they would encourage and facilitate voting in the longer term. Neil will argue that the pilot schemes were not about “when, where and how voting at the elections is to take place” but about whether a person gets to vote at all. A demand for ID such as a passport, driving licence or utility bill at the polling station “frustrates the facilitation and encouragement to vote”.
• The Court was wrong when it didn’t apply the principle that it should find against the Government when there is any doubt about the scope of a power to modify legislation in line with a Henry VIII clause. (Henry VIII clauses are clauses in a bill that enable ministers to amend or repeal provisions in an Act of Parliament using secondary legislation)

Your continued support is needed to help fund the ongoing work on the case which will allow us to make these arguments to protect our fundamental democratic rights. 

Thank you and stay safe!

Dear friends,

Our case against Voter ID was heard on Thursday 23rd April 2020 in front of three senior Judges at the Court of Appeal. Tony Peto, our lead Barrister and his team put forward on our behalf, strong and convincing arguments in support of our case against the government.

The judges have now retired to consider the arguments put forward by both sides. We may have to wait between four and five weeks for the decision, but I remain hopeful of a positive outcome.

Once again I would like to thank you all for your tremendous support and encouragement throughout this case. I will of course let you know the outcome of the case as soon as I have it.

Please stay safe and well.

Kind regards,
Neil Coughlan

Dear Friends,

 I hope you are safe and well in these difficult times.

 You may remember back in November 2018, we launched a High Court challenge to test the legality of the government's intention to run pilots, as part of a plan to introduce a requirement to show identification to vote.

 In March 2019 the case was heard at the High Court, where we were unfortunately, unsuccessful. The pilots were then run, whereupon almost 1000 people were turned away from the polling station because they didn't have the correct ID.

 Following the case, we were able to scrutinize the judgment. The team felt strongly that the Judge had got his decision wrong on a number of issues, so we decided to seek permission to launch an appeal. We subsequently received that permission, and just a few days ago, we received confirmation of the date for the hearing at the Court of Appeal. The hearing will be heard on Thursday, 23rd April 2020 via video link and with the Government planning to introduce Voter ID nationally this case is as important as ever.

I would like to thank you all for your tremendous support without which, we would not have been able to get as far as we have. To prepare a case for the Court of Appeal requires many hours of work involving a number of people, not least our Barristers. Although our legal team intend to work at significantly reduced rates, I know that if you felt able to offer a little support in terms of donations, the whole team would be extremely grateful.

Thank you once again and please keep safe.

Neil Coughlan

Dear Friends

I am truly overwhelmed by the magnificent support I have received from all of you regarding my campaign to defend our democracy. I have been genuinely moved and inspired by your comments and feel more determined than ever to hold this Government to account on behalf of us all.

On the 11th January, we submitted our case bundle to the High Court, which included various documents setting out our case, including a witness statement from myself. We have now heard back from the Court, which has set an expedited timetable for the case to be heard. This means that the Court agrees with our submission that the case is important and should be decided quickly.

The Defendant now has to respond to our claim in writing by 4pm on the 8th February 2019 setting out their defence. The Court has ordered that a hearing will be listed for 1 and a half days on the 27th February 2019, or as soon as possible after that.

We have reached the sum of £26,124 towards our costs, which is great! We do, however, still need to get to £40,000 to see this through right to the end. Please continue to share with friends via social media or by whatever means you can. Your support has already made an impact - since we started, two councils have already pulled out of the 2019 pilot, East Staffordshire Borough Council and Ribble Valley Borough Council. This means people in those areas will now not have to provide ID in the 2019 local elections.

I shall continue writing articles for the Press, doing interviews and generally trying to spread the word from my end. I am confident that working together, we can ultimately achieve a successful outcome.

Best wishes,

Neil