Legal challenge over Worcestershire council election dismissed by High Court
Reform UK’s Liz Williams launched the case after losing the Littleton seat on a tie-break
A bid to overturn an election result has been thrown out on a technicality, with a judge saying parts of a legal defence may have been invented by AI.
Reform UK’s Liz Williams had launched a legal challenge after losing out narrowly in May’s county council elections.
But she now faces what she calls an “unjust” legal bill of £19,000.
Ms Williams had received the same number of votes as the Green Party’s Hannah Robson, so returning officer Vic Allison picked a name out of a box to decide the winner.
Cllr Robson was named winner of the Littleton seat on Worcestershire County Council but Ms Williams contested the result, claiming the election process had been open to fraud.
Her petition has now been dismissed by the High Court, which says it was lodged a day too late.
Allegations of election fraud should be submitted to the court within 21 days of election day.
The Reform candidate argued that an election isn’t over until the count has been held, but Mr Justice Martin Spencer said the petition was not presented in time.
He also said Ms Williams had cited the case of R v Hackney ex parte Sidebotham (1912), but added: “That case does not exist.
“It appears that it may have been an invention, indeed a hallucination by AI.”
Ms Williams was also told to pay £19,000 in costs for two of the people named in the petition – Vic Allison and Meesha Patel, Wychavon District Council’s chief executive and director of legal and governance respectively.
A spokesman for Wychavon said: “We were more than prepared to challenge this petition at trial. However, it would have taken a considerable amount of officer time and money to fight in court.
“We decided that time, effort, and money could be better spent delivering services and improving the lives of our residents.
“That’s why we opposed the petition on technical grounds to bring this matter to a swift conclusion and minimise the risk of a hefty financial burden on the council taxpayer.
“The fact the judge significantly reduced the claimant’s costs justifies our decision.”
Ms Williams said the ruling “did not judge the validity of the election and did not confirm due process had been followed” as it “related to a timing deadline technicality only”.
She said the legal costs she will have to pay were “punishment of my whistleblowing”, describing them as “unjust, unfair and disproportionate”.
“I believe I am being punished for standing up for our rights and that I am being discriminated against.”
Ms Williams also admitted using AI to help form her legal case, which she ran out of time to fact check completely.
“I respect the judge’s inclusion of that in the judgement as a reminder of the dangers of AI and accuracy,” she said.