91Èȱ¬

In Court 25, in the basement of the in London, lawyers put in place the framework for what promises to be a memorable political battle.

Two election judges will decide whether the Labour MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth, , should be allowed to continue to represent the constituency.

It will be the first time an election court has sat to consider corruption allegations against an MP for 99 years.

This was effectively a preliminary hearing of the Election Court to decide how it should work.

Readers of this blog will be familiar with the background. Briefly, the Liberal Democrat candidate, , believes he was cheated out of victory by a leaflet published by Phil Woolas and is challenging the result.

The hearing was particularly interesting because all the lawyers, including the judge, were clearly working out the rules as they went along.

A decision was taken to hold the hearing on the week of 13 September, 2010.

The location was more of an issue. The rule book indicated the court should sit in the constituency.

So the venue is likely to be . Strictly speaking that is not in the constituency but it was considered close enough.

Then Mr Justice Griffith Williams wisely pointed out that nobody actually knew if the centre was available to host this historic event.

It was decided to leave the arrangements to the registrar from the Supreme Court who is still to be appointed. A shorthand writer from the will join them.

Incidentally the cost of this will be borne by Parliament, obviously through the taxpayer.

Two High Court judges must preside, sitting as election judges. Four are on the rota, though it's not clear who will be available or if other High Court judges may need to be brought in.

It is still possible the date could be pushed back. But Mr Justice Williams said this should be resolved before Parliament returns from the Summer recess.

Strictly speaking that won't happen because MPs are returning earlier this year. But nobody was entirely sure what the Parliamentary diary looked like either.

One of the solicitors representing kindly gave me a few minutes to explain this complicated procedure further.

The key point is that, unlike in defamation, the onus is very much on Mr Watkins to prove his case. He must convince the court of three things.

First that the allegations made by Phil Woolas were statements. Mr Woolas is apparently likely to argue very strongly that they were questions or suggestions.

Second, Mr Watkins must prove the statements questioned his personal character rather than just his political views.

Third, that the statements questioning his personal character were false.

Even if those criteria are met, Mr Woolas would defend himself by arguing that he believed them to be true, and had reasonable grounds for believing them to be true.

Incidentally the lawyer who seemed to understand the system best of all was . This is good news for Mr Woolas, since Gavin Millar is his defence barrister, as well as being Alastair Campbell's brother-in-law.

At times this hearing was faintly farcical. But as Mr Millar reminded the court, the status of an MP is in question.

The jovial finished proceedings by saying: "We may meet in Oldham".

I certainly hope so. But even if he is not there, others will be. And it will soon get very serious indeed.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?