Keith Mack
The Vote Leave campaign, which supported a Leave vote in the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, was found to have broken electoral law by overspending and failing to accurately report its spending. The campaign was fined £61,000 and referred to the police, with two individuals, David Halsall and Darren Grimes, referred to the Metropolitan Police in relation to false declarations of campaign spending. The campaign was also criticised for its close coordination with the student group BeLeave, which received £680,000 of surplus cash from Vote Leave, and for its resistance to the Electoral Commission's investigation.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Overspending | Vote Leave broke the spending limit by £449,079 |
| Inaccurate spending report | Vote Leave incorrectly reported £234,501 in spending and had missing invoices and receipts totalling £12,849.99 |
| Coordination with BeLeave | Vote Leave coordinated with BeLeave, a separate campaign, to circumvent spending limits |
| Unlawful use of data | Vote Leave was investigated for unlawful use of data during the EU Referendum |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- Vote Leave broke campaign spending limits by donating £625,000 to Darren Grimes
- Vote Leave failed to declare joint working with BeLeave
- Vote Leave returned an incomplete and inaccurate spending report
- Vote Leave resisted the Electoral Commission's investigation
- Vote Leave was fined £40,000 for sending unsolicited electronic messages
Vote Leave broke campaign spending limits by donating £625,000 to Darren Grimes
The pro-Brexit group Vote Leave donated £625,000 to Darren Grimes, a 23-year-old fashion design student and political campaigner, in the final days of the EU referendum campaign. This was a highly unusual transfer of funds, constituting a substantial proportion of Vote Leave's entire funding pot. The timing of the donation meant that it did not have to be declared until after the result was known, thereby evading scrutiny before the vote.
Grimes, a former Lib Dem activist who had recently joined the Conservatives, used the money for his BeLeave project, which targeted young voters and tried to convince them of the benefits of Brexit. BeLeave was an official Vote Leave outreach group, but it had a limited online presence, with just over 6,000 Facebook fans and fewer than 4,000 Twitter followers.
The High Court ruled that Vote Leave broke campaign spending limits by donating this money to Grimes. The court found that the donation should have been counted as Vote Leave expenditure because it was for a particular purpose (to be spent on the BeLeave campaign) rather than simply a donation for Grimes to use as he pleased. This meant that Vote Leave exceeded its £7 million spending limit.
The Electoral Commission had previously ruled that there was significant evidence of joint working between Vote Leave and BeLeave, and that Grimes had broken a related rule by registering his campaign as himself rather than under the name "BeLeave". As a result, the Commission fined both Vote Leave and Darren Grimes and referred them to the police. However, Grimes later won an appeal against the Electoral Commission, having crowdfunded £90,000 for legal costs.
Brittany Griner: Russian Law and the Legal Consequences
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Vote Leave failed to declare joint working with BeLeave
Vote Leave, the official Brexit campaign organisation, was found guilty of breaking electoral law by exceeding spending limits and coordinating illegally with another group, BeLeave, during the Brexit campaign. The Electoral Commission referred Vote Leave to the police and fined them £61,000.
The Commission's investigation revealed that Vote Leave had failed to declare joint working with BeLeave, a youth Brexit group led by Darren Grimes. Vote Leave donated £675,000 to BeLeave, which was used to pay data firm Aggregate IQ. This donation was not recorded as part of Vote Leave's referendum expenditure, which would have exceeded the £7 million spending limit. The Electoral Commission ruled that there was significant evidence of joint working between the two groups, and that they had worked together as part of a 'common plan'.
Shahmir Sanni, a Vote Leave whistleblower, alleged that Vote Leave had offered advice and assistance to BeLeave and helped them decide how to spend their funds. Vote Leave's failure to declare this joint working with BeLeave was a serious breach of the laws put in place to ensure fairness and transparency in elections and referendums.
The High Court of Justice also found against the Electoral Commission, stating that its advice to Vote Leave and Darren Grimes had been incorrect. However, the court confirmed that the overspending by Vote Leave was illegal. Vote Leave initially appealed against their fine but later withdrew, citing a lack of financial resources.
Plagiarism: A Crime or Creative License?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Vote Leave returned an incomplete and inaccurate spending report
Vote Leave was a campaigning organisation that supported a "Leave" vote in the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. The group was headed by prominent politicians, including Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Liam Fox, and Iain Duncan Smith.
In July 2018, the Electoral Commission found Vote Leave guilty of breaking electoral law by overspending and referred the organisation to the police. Specifically, Vote Leave was fined £61,000 for "exceeding its legal spending limit of £7 million by almost £500,000." The group also "returned an incomplete and inaccurate spending report, with nearly £234,501 reported incorrectly, and invoices missing for £12,849.99 of spending."
The Electoral Commission's investigation revealed that Vote Leave had failed to declare its joint working with the BeLeave campaign, which received £680,000 of surplus cash from Vote Leave. This coordination between the two groups meant that the money donated to BeLeave should have been counted as expenditure by Vote Leave, pushing them over the £7 million spending limit.
The Electoral Commission's report stated that "Vote Leave has resisted our investigation from the start, including contesting our right as the statutory regulator to open the investigation. It has refused to cooperate, refused our requests to put forward a representative for interview, and forced us to use our legal powers to compel it to provide evidence."
While the powerful politicians who fronted the Vote Leave campaign have faced no direct censure, the Electoral Commission's findings highlight the seriousness of the group's breaches of electoral law and the need for stronger regulations and increased resources to protect British democracy.
Live PD: Breaking Laws and the Consequences
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Vote Leave resisted the Electoral Commission's investigation
The UK's Electoral Commission found Vote Leave to have resisted its investigation and refused to cooperate. Bob Posner, the Electoral Commission's chief executive, said:
> Vote Leave has resisted our investigation from the start, including contesting our right as the statutory regulator to open the investigation. It has refused to cooperate, refused our requests to put forward a representative for interview, and forced us to use our legal powers to compel it to provide evidence. Nevertheless, the evidence we have found is clear and substantial, and can now be seen in our report.
The Electoral Commission's investigation found Vote Leave to have broken electoral law during the Brexit campaign. Vote Leave was fined £61,000 and referred to the police for exceeding its legal spending limit of £7 million by almost £500,000. The commission also found that Vote Leave "returned an incomplete and inaccurate spending report, with nearly £234,501 reported incorrectly, and invoices missing for £12,849.99 of spending".
The Electoral Commission's report established that BeLeave was operating as an arm of Vote Leave, which had won official status and the taxpayer money that entailed, partly by recruiting Conservative party luminaries. The Electoral Commission ruled that there was significant evidence of joint working between the lead campaigner, Vote Leave, and BeLeave.
The Electoral Commission's investigation followed testimony from three whistleblowers, including Shahmir Sanni, a former Vote Leave volunteer, who told the Observer in March 2018 that the official Brexit campaign had offered advice and assistance to BeLeave and helped it to decide where its cash would be spent.
Washington's Law-Breaking: A President's Legal Legacy
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Vote Leave was fined £40,000 for sending unsolicited electronic messages
The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) fined Vote Leave £40,000 for sending out 196,154 unsolicited text messages in the lead-up to the 2016 EU referendum. The ICO's investigation found that the campaign sent 196,154 text messages to people which included campaign propaganda and, in most cases, links to the campaign's website where recipients could find out more. Vote Leave was unable to provide the ICO with evidence to show that the recipients of the messages had given their consent, which is a key component of electronic marketing law as set out by the Data Protection Act 2018.
Vote Leave told the ICO that it had deleted the information, which it claimed to have gathered through website enquiries, individuals responding via text to promotional leaflets, and entrants to a football competition, following the referendum. Details of the phone numbers the spam messages were sent from, the volume of messages sent, and the number of messages received were also deleted.
"Spam texts are a real nuisance for millions of people and we will take action against organisations who disregard the law," said Steve Eckersley, ICO Director of Investigations. "Direct marketing is not just about selling products and services. It's also about promoting an organisation's aims and ideals. Political campaigns and parties, like any other organisation, have to comply with the law."
Vote Leave responded to the investigation by saying that it had acquired people's details from enquiries originating from its website, from individuals who had responded via text to promotional leaflets, and from entrants to its football competition, which promised a £50 million cash prize. Vote Leave also stated that fewer than 20 people had made complaints about the text messages sent during the campaign and alleged that the complaints were driven by political purposes.
Kings' Legal Immunity: A Historical Perspective
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Vote Leave was fined £61,000 for breaking electoral law.
Vote Leave was found guilty of breaking electoral law by overspending and was also referred to the police. The group "exceeded its legal spending limit of £7 million by almost £500,000".
The Electoral Commission's findings led to a difficult period of soul-searching in Britain over what to do about the evidence of extensive wrongdoing. There were calls for a serious shake-up of the Electoral Commission and for stronger laws and greater resources to protect British democracy.
