Following our last update, we are writing to you today to let you know that we have decided not to appeal the judgement. 

I appreciate this decision may be disappointing for you, and we want to be clear that although we thought the injustice of May 2019 was not addressed by the judges, we feel there is insufficient chance it could be addressed in a meaningful way in an appeal.

While we regret the judgement, we sadly have to prioritise our finite energy and resources on other battles, such as physical documents for settled status holders, the Data Protection immigration exemption and issues impacting EU citizens around the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement, especially the consequences facing those who don’t apply for status in time for the fast approaching 30 June deadline. 

We are also planning a nationwide campaign to encourage as many EU citizens to register to vote and use their voting rights this year, within the context of the May 2021 local, mayoral and devolved administration elections, which are open to EU citizens in the UK.

As we said in our previous update, we have lost one legal battle, but our broader fight for citizens’ rights continues and we hope we can rely on your trust and your support for current and future strategic litigation.

We are deeply disappointed that today the High Court rejected a claim for judicial review brought by individual EU citizens who have made the UK their home, all of whom wanted to vote in the 2019 European Parliament elections but could not because of the way the UK voting system operated.

We, the3million, brought the claim along with them because we believe that the right to vote is fundamental in a democracy.  The Government was well aware of the risks of disenfranchisement. It ought to have taken action to avoid it happening in the first place and it ought to have accepted it was responsible when it happened, rather than blame others such as local election officials and the EU. In the report published late in 2019, the Electoral Commission agreed with us. The Government did not challenge this report. However, its actions have been found lawful by the Court.

The Court accepted some EU citizens were denied their vote but was unwilling to draw any conclusions about the numbers. The case shows that, even though we have evidence of thousands of EU citizens being unable to vote due to the procedures controlled directly by the government, proving systemic discrimination in court is incredibly hard to achieve.

We find it hard to reconcile the findings in the judgment with what happened to us in 2019. However, EU citizens are facing a growing set of challenges and we are now taking stock of our options. We will look at our resources, at the urgent priorities for those who we represent, and what we can do going forward. We will be in touch with our backers, who we wouldn’t have been able to bring this case without, next week. We remain grateful to all those who supported this case.

We have lost one legal battle, but our broader fight for citizens’ rights continues. Join the3million now.

The hearing of the #DeniedMyVote judicial review challenge concluded yesterday before the Lord Justice Lewis and Sir Michael Supperstone.

Yesterday was the Government’s opportunity to set out its defence to the claim brought by the3million and the five individual claimants, as presented to the Court on Tuesday by their lead counsel, Gerry Facenna QC.

Clive Sheldon QC, acting for the Government opened by stating that the voting requirements for the 2019 European Parliament Elections were compliant with the EU Voting Directive, human rights and discrimination law.  He developed those arguments through the day.

His first ‘headline point’ was to say our “assertion” of mass disenfranchisement was wrong.  The Government accepted that some voters may have wanted to vote but were unable to do so but that this had not been the fault of the Government, but rather was due to mistakes and omissions at the local level.  He argued that the claim should properly have been brought against them (a point made for the very first time, though the Government has blamed local authorities before).  He disputed the3million’s evidence that the problem had been widespread and systemic and in particular the analysis of the Electoral Commission showing that across the country a very low proportion of those EU24 citizens who had registered to vote were able to do so.  He argued there was no way of knowing how many of those registered had actually wanted to vote and referred to data from the European Commission which showed relatively low voter registration by “mobile” EU citizens in their countries of residence.  We robustly challenged this analysis in their reply later in the day (see below). 

Mr Sheldon went on to argue that the 2019 elections had taken place in an “unprecedented context” which should frame how the Court approached the complaints of breaches of rights.  He argued that the Government’s conduct in the lead up to the 2019 elections was explained by the fact that the Withdrawal Act 2018 had specified that the UK would be leaving the EU on 29 March 2019 and therefore would not be taking part in the elections in May 2019.  He argued that the Government had acted swiftly as soon as it became clear that elections would have to take place after all, laying a Poll Order on 8 April (coming  into effect on 10 April 2019), after which 2.4 million UC1/EC6 declaration forms were sent to EU citizens to enable them to participate.

At this point, Mr Sheldon suggested that the judicial review claim was “academic”. No further European Parliament elections would be taking place in the UK, he said, so there would be no real benefit in the claim proceeding.  Our barrister Mr Facenna interjected to clarify that the individual claimants were in fact seeking a declaration that their rights had been breached and that the claim was not simply a general systems challenge. 

Mr Sheldon then continued with his submissions. He argued that the UK’s arrangements were compliant with EU law, which requires EU citizens to have the right to vote “under the same conditions as nationals”.  He said there was nothing unlawful under the Directive in requiring EU citizens (but not UK nationals) to provide two documents (the registration form and the declaration form) in order to vote, nor in making the UC1/EC6 form ‘time limited’, nor in automatically removing EU citizens from the register every 12 months.  In this respect, Mr Sheldon argued that EU citizens are treated no differently to ‘special category’ UK national voters, such as those with no fixed above or those in psychiatric care who are also required to submit relevant declaration forms and who are automatically removed from the register after 12 months. Lewis LJ queried at this point whether it was really the Government’s position that it was sufficient to comply with EU law that EU24 citizens were treated no worse than a small, exceptional subcategory of UK nationals.  He pointed out that the more obvious comparator to an EU24 citizen would be their UK national next door neighbour, rather than a UK national of no fixed abode.  Mr Sheldon said that the Government considered “overseas electors” (i.e UK nationals resident overseas who wish to vote in an election in the UK) as being the best comparators: they too are automatically removed from the register and are required to return a declaration form.  There was, he submitted, no difference in treatment with EU24s; both groups had to confirm an intention to vote within 12 months of the poll.

In terms of whether a time limited declaration was permitted under EU law, Mr Sheldon argued that it was within the UK’s discretion on how to implement EU law locally and that it was proportionate.  There was a legitimate aim which was, in the Government’s submission, to prevent “double voting” and also “inadvertent disenfranchisement” which it was said could arise if declarations were either indefinite or for a longer period, as voters may forget they had made a declaration and then, upon taking up residence in another member state, find themselves unable to vote.  Mr Sheldon argued that the 12-month period struck the right balance; it was not an onerous requirement. 

Mr Sheldon then argued that the Government had not delayed in confirming that the UK would be participating in the 2019 elections until 7 May 2019 (the deadline for return of UC1 forms).  The Government had laid the Poll Order almost a month before, even though it hoped things would change and the elections would not happen in the UK.

In respect of the Claimants’ complaint that the Government had failed to require distribution of UC1 forms sufficiently in advance of the deadline on 7 May 2019, Mr Sheldon argued that guidance sent out by the Electoral Commission to local officials had been made sufficiently in advance of the election.  He also noted that the Government had sent a few tweets and published information on its website to publicise the need for EU citizens to return their declaration forms and £500,000 had been spent on publicity (on being asked, Mr Sheldon clarified that this expenditure was publicity for the election generally rather than for the EU24).  Mr Sheldon submitted that the Government had done enough.  Lewis LJ also pointed out that the3million had publicised the need for UC1/EC6 forms to be returned by 7 May, but Mr Sheldon had to concede that the Government could not rely upon the efforts of the3million to discharge its own legal duties.

In the afternoon session, Mr Sheldon continued, arguing that providing the UC1 form at the polling station was not possible, as it would not have allowed sufficient time for the “information exchange” process to take place before the vote (this is the process of member states sharing information as to where declarations of intention to vote have been made) and would have required a change in the law.   

Mr Sheldon then addressed the Claimants’ argument that the Government was aware of the problems in the system after the 2014 elections but had abandoned them and failed to make contingency plans for the 2019 elections.  Mr Sheldon dismissed this as a mischaracterisation.  He argued that the Government had not “committed to changing the law” but instead had “committed to exploring” whether to change the law.   He also noted that the European Commission had never followed up on their concerns about the 2014 elections.

The Court then considered Mr Sheldon’s argument that a witness statement submitted by Dr Jablonowski of the3million should not be admitted as evidence. Mr Jablonowski’s statement presented statistics gathered by the Electoral Commission and his analysis. Mr Sheldon sought to argue that Mr Jablonowski was not independent and was not an expert witness.  The Court was clear that Mr Jablonowski’s evidence was informative and of assistance to the Court and they confirmed it would be admitted (albeit not as expert evidence). 

On discrimination, Mr Sheldon said this was permitted by EU law because the declaration was required. It was “baked into the system”, so lawful, he said.

In respect of whether the Government had, in the exercise of its functions, had “due regard” to the need to, among other things, eliminate discrimination and to encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life (known as the Public Sector Equality Duty or ‘PSED’), Mr Sheldon acknowledged that the Government’s evidence was that they had not done so.  The Court therefore asked Mr Sheldon if the Government were admitting a breach of this important equality duty.  Surprisingly, Mr Sheldon said they were not.  His argument (something never raised by the Government before this hearing) was that the Government had not been required to have due regard because, “deciding whether or not to amend legislation” was not a “public function”. As a fall back argument, he stated that even if the Government had had due regard to the relevant matters under the PSED it would not have made any difference to the outcome, so the Claimants should not be granted any remedy.    

Mr Facenna then made his reply submissions, starting by disputing the factual background presented by Mr Sheldon, in particular disputing Mr Sheldon’s analysis of the EU Commission data showing  low voter registration figures for “mobile” EU citizens.  First, this said nothing about UK registration, which was a matter of fact known to the Court through the Electoral Commission’s report. It was significantly higher than many other member states, in particular those to whom Mr Sheldon had referred, with 55% of EU citizens in the UK registered to vote before the 2019 elections.  Mr Facenna directed the Court to evidence of the actual turn-out rate of ‘mobile’ EU citizens in other EU member states in the 2019 elections which showed participation of roughly 50%, as compared to the 20% of registered EU24 citizens who were permitted to vote in the UK. Mr Facenna also noted that the Court had before it the unchallenged evidence of 9,000 people across 99 local authorities who had completed a UC1 form, but which was not processed before the 7 May deadline.

Mr Facenna went on to argue that the automatic deregistration of EU24 citizens rendered Article 9(4) of the Voting Directive (under which Member States have an obligation to take necessary measures to enable EU citizens to be entered on the electoral roll sufficiently in advance of polling day, and to ensure that they remain on the electoral roll under the same conditions as nationals) meaningless: having a system which requires annual registration is incompatible with that duty.  

Mr Facenna also challenged the Government’s reliance on so-called “special category voters”, such as those in psychiatric institutions or people of no fixed abode as a comparator to EU24 citizens, echoing Lewis LJ’s earlier comment that the correct comparator would be a UK national resident in the UK. Any comparator has to be in the same circumstances.  Similarly, a UK national living abroad cannot be the right comparator as their circumstances are different to an EU24 citizen residing in the UK.

In any event, Mr Facenna went on, the Government’s system must be proportionate.  There must be some proof that there is a problem they are seeking to solve.   In that respect, Mr Facenna argued that there was no connection between the need to avoid “double voting” and the requirement to re-register and make a declaration every 12 months and in any event, there is no real evidence before the Court that double voting takes place in any significant way.  Mr Facenna also argued that the arguments about “inadvertent disenfranchisement” were not supported by any evidence and that any such argument was entirely dependent upon what the member states actually did with the information obtained from the Information Exchange: in reality, you cannot be removed from the register on the basis that you have made a declaration in two separate countries.  And further, the Government would still need to show that automatic deregistration every 12 months was proportionate to satisfy that aim. The evidence is that removal every 12 months has a significant impact on EU 24 citizens and in practice, removes their right to vote.  It is also relevant, he submitted, that no other member state has this requirement. 

Mr Facenna also argued that the problems dismissed by Mr Sheldon as being ‘local problems’ were in fact due to the Government’s failure to remedy those problems identified after the 2014 European parliament elections.  He argued that Mr Sheldon’s position that it was the role of local officials to fund the sending of UC1 forms would not have precluded the government from agreeing to fund them in the particular circumstances of the 2109 elections.

In respect of the arguments about the PSED, Mr Facenna argued very strongly that the Claimants should be afforded the opportunity to respond to this entirely new defence.  Mr Facenna submitted that this was a matter of significant public interest and the Claimants should be given the opportunity to respond.  Lewis LJ and Sir Michael Supperstone then agreed to allow the Claimants to make further written submissions on this point, by 4pm tomorrow (29 January 2021).

What next? 

As noted above, our lawyers will make some short written submissions on the PSED issue and the Government may be permitted the right to reply in writing. 

After that, the judges will go away to consider and to prepare their judgment.  There is no set timescale for judgments to be handed down, so this could be anywhere from a matter of weeks to two or three months. 

Thank you for following the case closely and all your ongoing support. As soon as we have a date for the judgement being made public, we will send out an update on that.

Yesterday was the first of two days of legal argument in the #DeniedMyVote judicial review challenge.  It was a ‘hybrid’ hearing, with Lord Justice Lewis and Sir Michael Supperstone appearing in Court 2 of the Royal Courts of Justice along with one member of the Government’s legal team.  All other participants joined remotely via Skype. This posed its own challenges, with various sound problems which thankfully improved as the day progressed.

The day was dedicated to the Claimants’ case, with Gerry Facenna QC making submissions on behalf of the3million and five individual claimants.  He opened with an overview, highlighting the very real injustice to EU24 citizens who were denied the right to vote in the 2019 European Parliament elections.  The risk of widespread disenfranchisement was, he submitted, something the Government was well aware of following the 2014 European Parliament elections and it had failed to act upon recommendations and proposals intended to remedy defects in the system – including from civil servants in the Cabinet Office. Mr Facenna emphasised the significant impact on the individual claimants, all long term residents of the UK whose right to choose to vote in the country that is their home – the UK - had not been respected.

The judges were extremely engaged and intervened regularly throughout with a series of robust questions.  They started by challenging Mr Facenna as to whether the claim was now ‘academic’ given the UK had left the European Union.  Mr Facenna clarified that the purpose of the claim was to establish whether the conduct of the 2019 European Parliament elections had been unlawful under EU law, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Equality Act.  A declaration that those rights had been breached would vindicate those rights and give rise to a right to damages for the individual claimants, and therefore the claim was in no way academic under the relevant legal tests.

Mr Facenna took the Court to evidence from the Electoral Commission, correspondence between the UK Government and the EU Commission following the 2014 European Parliament elections, as well as to internal correspondence in the Cabinet Office.  This evidence demonstrated very real concerns about the potential for future disenfranchisement and also showed the steps being contemplated by the Government between 2014 and 2016 to remedy the problematic (and potentially discriminatory) aspects of the system, none of which were acted upon before the 2019 elections: the reform initiative was simply abandoned after the EU Referendum vote and not revived, even though it could have been, once it because obvious in March 2019 that the UK would be participating in the 2019 Elections.

Mr Facenna also highlighted statistics which demonstrated that a significant proportion of EU24 citizens who had registered to vote had not been permitted to do so in the 2019 elections.  Lewis LJ challenged the Claimants on this, on the basis that it may not be possible to infer that all those who had registered to vote but who did not return a UC1 form before the 7 May deadline had been ‘prevented’ from voting; some may have chosen not to vote, or may have chosen to vote in their member state of origin. In response, Mr Facenna referred the Court to press and social media reporting of the widespread problems faced by EU24 citizens who wanted to vote in the UK and could not.  He also pointed to the Electoral Commission’s report, which emphatically found that the deficiencies in the arrangements for the 2019 Elections had frustrated voters’ rights in a manner that was “unacceptable”.  Lewis LJ indicated however that the Court might be reluctant to rely on the Electoral Commission’s conclusions, noting that the Court was required to reach its own findings of fact.

The Court challenged Mr Facenna as to whether the Claimants’ submitted it was unlawful not to make preparations for the 2019 elections after the Article 50 notice was sent, given that meant the UK was due to leave the EU on 29 March 2019 and would therefore not be participating. Mr Facenna pointed out that the UK remained bound by EU law and as such was under a continuing duty to protect the rights of EU24 voters.  The Government had failed to remedy the defects in the system identified by the Electoral Commission and others and defiantly refused to acknowledge: the prospect that the European Parliament elections would go ahead in May because circumstances might change; and the fact that they did change when the UK’s membership of the EU was extended in March 2019. This defiance, combined with the unique features of the UK’s system, had led to breaches of EU law on election day.  Other countries’ systems did not include time-limited declaration forms or automatic striking off the register if those forms were not returned within a tight time scale. Mr Facenna showed the Court the evidence of local election officials raising their concerns with the Cabinet Office with increasing alarm in March and April 2019 and highlighted the difficulties posed by the very late publication of the poll order (8 April 2019) which left electoral officials very little time to publicise and to prepare, print and send out declaration forms to EU24 citizens to help them to exercise their right to vote (a process which would normally take place over six months).

In the afternoon session, Lewis LJ and Sir Michael Supperstone indicated they wanted specific submissions relating to each of the individual claimants, so Mr Facenna took them to their witness statements, emphasising that their circumstances aligned with the categories of those identified in the Electoral Commission’s reports as having faced barriers to participation arising from deficiencies in the UK system. The Court made many more interventions, questioning Mr Facenna on whether fault for the problems faced by the individual claimants may in fact have lay with local election officials (or even Royal Mail) rather than the UK Government. 

It was a challenging day in Court. The Government’s lead barrister, Clive Sheldon QC will make submissions today from 10.30 AM and the Claimants will have the opportunity for a short reply before the end of the day.

Bindmans will send out links again to those who registered with us previously. If you wish to view today’s hearing and have not already registered, please [email protected]. 

It is very important that all those joining could please do so with their video and microphone switched off, in order to reduce interference.

In any event, we will provide a further summary of the second day later today or tomorrow.

On Tuesday 26^th and Wednesday 27^th January, the Divisional Court (a specially constituted High Court with Lord Justice Clive Lewis and Sir Michael Supperstone) will hear our #DeniedMyVote judicial review challenge. The two judges will be physically in the Royal Courts of Justice, but most of the submissions in the hearing will be made remotely, given Covid-19. 

We are waiting to see if the Court can livestream the proceedings on YouTube, but it is more likely that those who want to watch will need join using a Skype link that will be sent out each day. We recommend that you send your email address now to [email protected] so our solicitors Bindmans can make sure you get the link if the Court decides to proceed in that way. Do use this address for any questions you have. We will also send out a further update once they hear from the Court.

Meanwhile, what can you expect at the hearing?

The hearing is likely to start at 10.00 AM each day and run until 4.30 PM with an hour’s break for lunch around 1.00 PM.

After some preliminaries, our lead barrister, Gerry Facenna QC, will open our case, taking the Court through the evidence of systemic, mass disenfranchisement that the Government was responsible for. There is a huge amount of material in front of the Court – over 5000 pages of documents -  including our surveys, statistics from  local authorities, our analysis of them, and the damning Electoral Commission reports. Our case is summarized in our ‘skeleton argument’ which you can access now here. Note the redactions (blanked out text) are there just to protect personal information about the individual co-claimants involved. We have asked the Government if we can publish their skeleton argument, but they have yet to say yes. If they consent, we will do that in another update.

Gerry will likely finish his main submissions on Tuesday. The Government’s QC, Clive Sheldon, will speak for most of Wednesday, and then Gerry will have an opportunity to reply. The hearing will end and the Judges will go away to deliberate what should happen. Their ruling should come in a month or two (occasionally it takes longer).

After each day of the hearing, we will publish a summary of what has been said. But do get in touch at [email protected] if anything is unclear to you.

Last, thank you so much for all your support, without which we would not be here, ready to call the Government to account for #DeniedMyVote.

Just as our legal team were completing their preparations, the hearing set for our judicial review on 8 and 9 December has unexpectedly been postponed.

We heard about this being considered on Friday and it happened formally yesterday. It seems that the Court has decided the case needs to be considered by a specially constituted ‘Divisional Court’ which has a Court of Appeal Lord or Lady Justice and a normal High Court Judge sitting together and this cannot happen next week.

The new hearing dates are 26^th and 27^th January 2021.

We don’t see this development as anything to worry about; it simply means the Court is taking the case very seriously and considers it is too important to be decided by a single High Court judge sitting alone.

Look out for another update just before the hearing with information on how you can watch the hearing remotely by Skype.

It’s been quite a wait thanks to Covid-19, but our #DeniedMyVote challenge is now headed for a full hearing in the Administrative Court on 8 and 9 December 2020.

The Court’s current default arrangements are to use Skype for Business rather than have an in-person hearing at Court and we have decided that would be best, both to ensure everyone is safe and that the prospects of the hearing being delayed are minimized, and to enable you and other supporters to tune in and watch the arguments (provided the Court agrees). We will check with the Court and circulate details of how to do that nearer to the hearing. It’s likely that journalists will also be virtually present to repost what’s said. Here is some information about Skype hearings. Our barristers have done several now.

Before the hearing: 

• we will publish all our written submissions so you can see how the case will be argued;  
  
  
• if the Government consents, we will public its submissions too; and  
  
  
• we will keep you updated on developments and let you know if, for any reason, the hearing will not proceed (which is not very likely).

At the hearing: 

• the parties’ representatives will introduce themselves;
  
  
• the Judge will deal with any procedural applications that have not already been decided;
  
  
• then our lead barrister, Gerry Facenna QC will open the case (supported by barristers Anneli Howard and Gayatri Sarathy along with our solicitors John Halford and Caroline Robinson and their colleagues Grace Benton and Verity Cannell) – this will take up most, possibly all of 8 December;
  
  
• the Government’s lead barrister Clive Sheldon QC will then respond, supported by his team;
  
  
• there will be no evidence from witnesses (that’s very unusual in judicial review), but the barristers will refer the judge to witness statements we and the Government’s witnesses have filed;
  
  
• Gerry will then reply to the Government’s submissions; and  
  
  
• the Judge will then thank everyone and close the hearing (though sometimes written submissions are sent in afterwards, with the Court’s permission).

The Judge will then decide the case. It’s likely that we will have a decision early in the new year on the main issues of principle – i.e. in January or February. If we succeed, there will be a further hearing about what should happen then in terms of remedies.

Our CrowdJustice fundraising campaign remains open so do contribute a little more if you can. Thank you for your ongoing support.

This short update is about how the case is going and when we expect it to be heard. Thank you to all the supporters to this crowdfunder that have made taking it forward possible.

In the litigation, the last step our lawyers took was to file this detailed ‘Reply’ to the Government’s full written defense (a document called ‘Detailed Grounds of Resistance which unfortunately we cannot publish).  The Guardian discusses the Reply here, highlighting the fact that Ministers did not heed a series of warnings from their own officials about the need for timely preparations for the 2019 European Parliament Elections notwithstanding Brexit. The Reply also discusses the proposals that were made for reform of the disenfranchising UC1 declaration form system after its effects were exposed in 2014 – and the wholescale abandonment of work on those proposals after the 2016 Referendum. Very regrettably, EU citizens were dismissed as an unimportant minority (see paragraph ** of the Reply). That goes to the heart of this case. We are a minority, but our voting rights matter just as much as everyone else’s in a democracy.

Besides work on the Reply, the legal team have been pressing the Government to disclose further documents relevant to the case and preparing the Cost Capping Order application to protect us and the individual co-claimants as we go forward.

The Court has also been in touch to ask about hearing dates. It looks likely the hearing will happen in October or November this year, hopefully in open Court so the public can attend or at least with some form of streaming access if it takes place online (as many hearings do at present).

We will keep you posted on developments as they occur. We remain absolutely determined to securing a ruling that what happened last year was unlawful and setting a clear precedent to protect against mass discrimination of this kind occurring in the future. 

You’ve done it! We will fight on.

Thank you so much for helping us reach our crowd funding target of £60,000 to challenge the discrimination and disenfranchisement of #DeniedMyVote.

Earlier in the week we honestly did not think we were going to make it, but your support, during these difficult times, has been incredible and very humbling.

This means that we are now in a position to proceed with the case – which is fantastic news.

I now want to take a moment to explain what the next steps are.

First, we are about to publish our ‘Reply’ to the Government’s case which discusses what went on behind closed doors in Whitehall when Civil Servants warned the Government about anticipated problems with the 2019 European Parliament Elections. Watch this space!

Secondly, we are inviting the Government – again – to meet and discuss whether there might be a fair and just way of settling the case. Our solicitors have written today to those representing the Government about this, suggesting a formal mediation process. They have, of course, made it clear that we will press on to the final Court hearing if this does not happen.

Thirdly, with the money raised, plus what we have held back in reserve, we will ask the Court to make a ‘cost capping order’ to protect the3million and the individual claimants from having to pay more Government legal costs than we can afford (if the case ultimately does not succeed). This is a really important step in any test case, where the Government will inevitably have far more resources to defend itself than those seeking to hold it to account. We will be making this application within the next two to three weeks and would expect to have an answer from the Court in one to two months.

We then expect a date for a full hearing to be set, which the Court has said may be late this year, but could be held back until next Spring. We will keep you fully updated once we know more details.

Lastly, you will see that the CrowdJustice target has been reset to a stretch target of £150,000. The reason for this is that the £60,000 will allow us to apply for the costs capping order, but is not enough to pay our lawyers for all their work until trial (and, so far, they have sent us bills for less than half of their normal fees). Money raised towards the stretch target will allow us to pay our lawyers more in the months coming, particularly when the work needed will be at its most intense, just before and during the hearing.

Thank you again for your generosity.

Nicolas Hatton, the3million

A year has passed since #DeniedMyVote, but our case challenging what happened remains hugely important and needs your support

Our #DeniedMyVote judicial review challenging last year’s mass disenfranchisement continues in the Courts. We have been served with the Government’s 1200 pages of evidence, it has been carefully analysed by our legal team and they have produced a powerful Reply document which we will publish soon.

Meanwhile, we have asked our solicitor, John Halford, to summarise why the case remains so important – not only for EU citizens here in the UK like ourselves, but for everyone who values democracy and accountability.

To take the case all the way through to a full hearing, we still need your support. Please make a contribution now through CrowdJustice so we can fight on!

Nicolas Hatton

Co-founder, the3million

Our solicitor, John Halford, writes:

Though the weather was very similar, May 2019 had a very different feel to it than this May does: the news was filled not with the latest COVID-19 mortality statistics and Dominic Cummings’ creative childcare arrangements, but with the latest twists and turns of the Brexit negotiations and Parliament’s unresolved disagreements over the draft Withdrawal Agreement.

In the midst of all of this, the #DeniedMyVote scandal was a headline-grabbing surprise for many. Despite being registered to vote here and, in many cases, resident for decades, EU citizens were being turned away from polling stations in large numbers and told they could not vote in the European Parliament elections. Many had completed the special ‘UC1’ forms to certify the rather obvious fact that they intended to vote here but were told the forms had been lost or not processed in time. Other EU citizens had not heard of them. When they asked officials whether they could complete the special forms at the polling stations there and then, they were told this was not permitted. Adding insult to injury, some EU citizens were told that they ought to go away and vote in their ‘own countries’. Meanwhile, their British neighbours were permitted to vote unhindered. Many British citizens did face difficulty, however, if they attempted to vote here by post from other EU countries: significant numbers of ballot papers were either not sent out in the first place or lost when they were returned.

The disenfranchised EU citizens and their British counterparts had two other things in common. First, all of them were legally entitled to vote either in the EU country where they were resident or in the country of which they were nationals. This was a basic right written into the EU treaties and underpinned by human rights and anti-discrimination law. Secondly, organisations representing them had been raising concerns about how effective the 2019 European Parliament elections would be for some time because serious disenfranchisement problems had already arisen back in 2014.

What happened in 2014 did not go unnoticed at the time. It had prompted the Government to acknowledge that the UK's byzantine voting procedures were leading to significant numbers of people being prevented from voting and give assurances to the EU Commission and that they would be remedied in good time for the 2019 Elections.

But these promises were, it seems, unceremoniously abandoned in the immediate aftermath of the 2016 Referendum. The Government had simply assumed that the 2019 European Parliament elections would not be taking place. The unreliability of that assumption should have been plain when the draft Withdrawal Agreement was first rejected by Parliament in January 2019. Contingency planning for the 2019 European Parliament Elections should have begun long before then. But absolutely nothing was done to revive proposals for reforming the defective system. Worse still, the Government decided not to formally confirm that the 2019 European Parliament Elections would be taking place until 7 May - the very same day when EU citizens were legally required to return their special UC1 forms confirming they intended to vote here.

It is difficult to know just how many EU citizens were denied their right to vote last May, but the Electoral Commission’s special report into what happened suggests that there were well over a million who had registered to vote but did not exercise their rights. Local authority officers have recorded thousands of these people attempting to vote unsuccessfully. In short, #DeniedMyVote was the biggest electoral disenfranchisement in the UK in recent history, possibly ever.

What is happening now, a year on, and why does it matter?

To start with, EU citizens’ campaigning organisation the3million and six representative disenfranchised EU citizens have bravely taken on the Government in a judicial review that seeks a clear Court ruling on the legality of what happened. That is necessary because, incredibly, the Government maintains that the European Parliament Elections were run satisfactorily and that it was not responsible for anyone being disenfranchised. If the judicial review succeeds, it will show just how wrong and misplaced this complacent attitude is in a democracy. All elections matter, as do the rights of each and every voter.

Looking forward, the case is hugely important to EU citizens here in the UK at this critical time for broader reasons: if they can be stripped of the right to vote, despite it being embedded in law, what other rights might be taken away by the same means?

But the case is one which everyone committed to democracy should care about. Minorities are an easy target for disenfranchising action by governments. Once their rights are taken away without challenge, it is not long before our own are threatened. The COVID-19 pandemic has understandably led our Government to ask for our trust now more than any other time in a generation. That makes democratic accountability more important than at any other time. When voting rights are compromised, as they were so conspicuously a year ago, that should be regarded as a scandal and there should be accountability.

the3million’s judicial review claim is scheduled to be heard later this year. Right now, however the3million is urgently raising funds to enable that hearing to take place. Please make a contribution through CrowdJustice so they can fight for democracy - not only for EU citizens, but for all of us.