I reckon “why” is easy.

Mark Pack’s posted the judgement of Mr Justice Silber – http://bit.ly/bJnm2B – which is worth a read if you’re interested in the detail.

Essentially, a judicial review is only possible for decision of “inferior tribunals”. The High Court exercises a supervisory jurisdiction of such bodies, and can conduct judicial reviews of their decisions. In this case, whether JR was available turned on what an Election Court actually is.

This was being debated by various lawyers on Twitter on Friday; I was one of those who felt the Election Court (for Parliamentary elections) was actually the High Court. This is the view that Mr. Justice Silber has taken.

Given that a Parliamentary Election Court is two High Court judges, sitting as High Court judges, it’s difficult to see how any other results was realistic.

Thanks Matt, that covers the technical aspects of the application nicely but, unfortunately, fails to explain the actual premise on which Woolas sought the review.

What I suspect here, from his banal witterings about ‘chilling effects’ is that Woolas was planning to try and overturn s106 itself by seeking a declaration of incompatibility with ECHR/HRA.

In itself, that strikes me, if correct, as an act of desperation rather than a viable basis for overturning the election court’s decision.

@Unity: I think, if you read between the lines of Silber says, it doesn’t look as if the application expressly raised breach of a convention right. At Observation 1(d), he says:

Alternatively if a decision of the Election Court is amenable to judicial review this would only arise in limited circumstances none of which apply to this case.

Among the limited grounds for JR would be breach of a convention right, although not if there was an avenue of appeal (since the appeal could deal with the matter). Given Silber states that the availability of an appeal “…would be an additional ground for refusing permission” (my emphasis), it’s difficult to see how he could be dealing with an application that rest on convention rights.

(The underlying legalities are a bit more complex, but I think this is a reasonable summary for these purposes)

There’s no point in him trying a JR or an appeal. He is damaged goods. It doesn’t matter even if wins and is totally exonorated and stands for election and wins. He will always be seen as a tainted poltician which will affect him for the rest of his life.

The more he presses to clear his name and fails the more the publicity against him will rise.

He’d be better off giving up, staying low for a year or so (I bet he’ll probably still get his severance money and pension etc) and then quietly going into some lobbying company just like all his other friends such as Jacqui Smith et al.