Vote Leave referendum expenses ‘misinterpreted’, High Court rules

The elections watchdog “misinterpreted” spending rules surrounding donations by the official Brexit campaign during the EU referendum, the High Court has ruled. Campaigners from the Good Law Project (GLP) won a legal challenge against the Electoral Commission over election spending by Vote Leave, arguing that the watchdog failed in its duty to regulate the referendum process.

In a ruling yesterday, Mr Justice Leggatt said the Commission had misunderstood the definition of referendum expenses in relation to Vote Leave, a campaign group fronted by leading Brexiteers including Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.

The row centres on Vote Leave’s donation of £620,000 to Canadian online advertising firm AggregateIQ (AIQ) at the request of another Brexit campaigner, Darren Grimes, founder of the youth group BeLeave. This donation breached strict electoral spending rules as it took Vote Leave over its £7m spending limit by almost £500,000.

Campaigners launched the case in October last year, after the Electoral Commission said there were “no reasonable grounds to suspect” incorrect reporting of campaign spending or donations by Vote Leave. The watchdog later launched a probe into both Vote Leave and Mr Grimes, concluding that both had incorrectly reported their spending. Vote Leave was fined £61,000 and Mr Grimes was handed a £20,000 fine by the commission – and both were reported to the police.

The High Court agreed with the watchdog that Vote Leave had broken the rules, but found that it had also misinterpreted the rules in the advice it gave to the campaign.

Mr Justice Leggatt said the commission had “misinterpreted the definition of ‘referendum expenses’”, adding: “The source of its error is a mistaken assumption that an individual or body which makes a donation to a permitted participant cannot thereby incur referendum expenses. “As a result of this error, the Electoral Commission has interpreted the definition in a way that is inconsistent with both the language and the purpose of the legislation.”

Jolyon Maugham, director of the Good Law Project, said: ”It is now clear that the Electoral Commission gave unlawful advice that encouraged Vote Leave to carry on spending. And it gave it selectively – no such advice was given to Stronger In. The regulator, charged with ensuring the referendum was fair, in fact unlawfully tilted the playing field in Leave’s favour.”

Matthew Elliot, the former chief executive of Vote Leave, said the campaign had been left in a “complete

Alice in Wonderland situation”. Writing on the Brexit Central website, he said: “Vote Leave asked for, and received, the Electoral Commission’s advice. We followed that advice.

“During the judicial review, the Electoral Commission tried to avoid admitting that it had given that advice to us, but we were able to establish that they had – and the judges clearly ruled in the preliminary hearing that we had received that advice. Yet we are now told that, by having followed that advice, we broke the law.”

An Electoral Commission spokesperson said: “The Commission welcomes the court’s consideration of this aspect of electoral law. The court arrived at the same conclusion as the Commission did in its investigation – that Vote Leave should have accounted for the expenditure on the digital services firm, Aggregate IQ – although it found an additional reason for reaching that conclusion. The Commission imposed sanctions on Vote Leave for this offence and others found during the investigation.”