Release date:  

3rd May 2023


Council leader is found not guilty in electoral malpractice trial.


4-5 Gray’s Inn Square’s Tanveer Qureshi, instructed by Mandip Kumar of Precedence Law, achieved a Not Guilty verdict in a week-long trial involving allegations of electoral malpractice. A jury took less than 3 hours to find elected councillor and leader of council not guilty of corruption in an election.

 

Russell Bowden, a Labour party councillor and leader of Warrington Borough Council was charged with an offence contrary to Section 65A of the Representation of Peoples Act 1982.It was alleged Mr Bowden had deliberately lied on his nomination form by stating a false address in order to portray himself as a local man in the 2021 local elections.

 

Throughout the proceedings, Tanveer argued that there was no legal definition of home address and the CPS’s understanding of home address, namely a place limited to where one lives and sleeps was wrong. One month before the trial started, the CPS finally conceded they had applied the wrong legal test but pressed on with the case suggesting there was still overwhelming evidence that Mr Bowden had lied. But the jury took less than three hours to clear Mr Bowden.


Commenting on the case, Mr Bowden said:


“I have always had a clear conscience in relation to these unfounded allegations, but today’s outcome enables my name and reputation to remain intact. It has been stressful and deeply upsetting for my family to have this hanging over me for almost two years. I would like to thank my legal team, my barrister Tanveer Qureshi of 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square and my solicitor Mandip Kumar of Precedence Law who have supported me throughout this case along with my family, friends and many well-wishers.

Tanveer Qureshi commented:

"The courts have routinely grappled with the legal definition of a home address, a home address need not be limited to a place where one is routinely living and sleeping each night. This case reinforces the fact that just because a person has temporarily moved out of their permanent home address, it does not deprive them of using that address for the purposes of electoral procedures. A great deal of public expense could have been avoided if the crown properly considered the question of home address rather than proceeding on the basis it could only refer to a place where one habitually resides."



ENDS

Notes:

Tanveer Qureshi is a Barrister at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square who specialises in representing clients involved with allegations of malpractice, health and safety, regulatory breaches, fraud, along with other misconduct by individuals, companies, directors,  financial professionals and corporate entities.

Mandip Kumar is a Solicitor Advocate and Director of Precedence Law. He specialises in representing professional clients subject to criminal and professional regulatory proceedings.

For further information please contact [email protected].