How Vote Leave broke electoral laws

The UK Electoral Commission is poised to find Vote Leave guilty of four charges of breaking electoral law during the EU referendum campaign, according to the former chief executive of the pro-Brexit group.

In a move described by The Guardian as “extraordinary”, Matthew Elliott has revealed that a draft report by the elections watchdog concludes that Vote Leave broke spending limits and may therefore be liable to fines.

Elliott denies any wrongdoing, however, and claims the Electoral Commission’s findings amount to a “huge breach of natural justice”, because only “the fantasists” behind the allegations were given the chance to give their side of the story.

The case could end up in court, The Times reports.

So what is the row all about?

What is Vote Leave accused of?

According to Vote Leave, the draft report outlines four allegations against the campaign: that it made an inaccurate return of campaign expenditure; is missing a number of invoices and receipts; failed to comply with a statutory notice; and that it exceeded the spending limit for a political campaign.

The allegations centre on a £680,000 donation passed on by the campaign to a separate youth Brexit group called BeLeave, led by student Darren Grimes.

Whistle-blowers claim that the two groups worked together closely – which is not permitted by electoral law – and that the donated money was actually used by Vote Leave.

BeLeave was “simply a proxy of Vote Leave itself”, with the cash diverted in order to keep the main campaign under the Electoral Commission’s £7m spending limit, according to activist and former Vote Leave volunteer Shahmir Sanni. 

Sanni alleges that the cash was used to pay data firm Aggregate IQ for targeted social media messaging for both groups, Sky News reports.

Electoral rules also stipulate that different campaign groups can work loosely together but they must not have a “common plan”.

The nature of the relationship between the two groups has been an issue of contention since the 2016 referendum. As the Daily Mirror notes, Vote Leave has “faced two years of questions” over its financial dealings with Grimes.

What has Vote Leave said?

Elliott has denied all of the allegations against Vote Leave and accused the watchdog of not following “due process” in its investigation.

He told Sky News: “They’ve listened to these, quite frankly, marginal characters... but haven’t had evidence from Vote Leave side of things.

“I think it is a huge breach of natural justice that they haven’t wanted to listen to our opinions and our story and we were the people running the campaign.”

In an interview with the BBC, Elliott added: “I believe we acted both within the letter of the law and also the spirit of the law and the spirit of how you should conduct a campaign.

“We got the designation, Vote Leave, as the officially designated campaign for Leave, on the basis that we would be working with other groups – we wouldn’t just solely be working on our own, we would work alongside other groups and encourage them, and encourage their activities.”

Michael Gove, who was Vote Leave’s co-chair during the referendum alongside Labour’s Gisela Stuart, said he had not seen the watchdog’s draft verdict but told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that “the report itself, I think, is going to be challenged legally”.

“If it’s going to be challenged legally, if it is going to go through the courts, it would be inappropriate for me – not having read the report – to offer a commentary on it,” he added.

What has the Electoral Commission said?

An Electoral Commission spokesperson said: “The commission has concluded its investigation and, having reached initial findings, provided Vote Leave with a 28-day period to make any further or new representations. That period ended on Tuesday 3 July.

“The unusual step taken by Vote Leave in sharing its views on the Electoral Commission’s initial findings does not affect the process set out in law.

“The commission will give due consideration to the representations made to the commission, including those made by other campaigners under investigation.

“We will then, at the earliest opportunity, publish a thorough and detailed closing report in order to provide a full and balanced account to the public and to Parliament.”