Iain Dale is Wrong on supporting Phil Woolas

Conservative blogger Iain Dale has made the case (http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/11/why-ive-donated-to-phil-woolas-appeal.html) that Phil Woolas, the disgraced and hopefully soon to be ex-MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth, has been unreasonably treated by the law. He's even sent £100 towards Mr Woolas' legal costs to mount a Judicial Review.

In doing so, he seems to be following the same line as those Labour MPs that are standing by Phil Woolas, and refusing to back or accept the decision by Harriet Harman to suspend him from the Labour Party.

The argument is not on the content. As Iain Dale says, Phil Woolas' election leaflets were "wrong, racially inflammatory and totally indefensible". Agreed. Let's move on. Nothing to disagree with here.

However, Iain then makes the closing argument that:

"To my mind, the way these kind of disputes should be resolved is not to take them to 'election courts', but instead through the libel courts. It's interesting that the Lib Dem candidate didn't go down that route. I wonder why not."

Answer: Restorative Justice.

Let's imagine Iain gives money to a man for a nice, shiny new Audi. The salesman then runs off with it, leaving Iain with neither money nor car. The man is then caught and convicted. He gets a suspended sentence, but is not required to repay the money. Is that justice? Iain didn't get what he deserved - either his nice new car, or the money back. Which, surely, Iain would argue was unfair. By dealing with this case through the libel courts, Phil Woolas would get to keep that which he wanted most: his seat.

The ruling of the court was that on three separate counts "we are sure that the Respondent made statements of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of the Petitioner which he had no reasonable grounds for believing were true and did not believe were true." They say he was lying. The electorate could not know he was lying at the time. That has only been confirmed since. It goes beyond questioning, free speech or political differences: on his election material, the court has found that Phil Woolas lied.

Taking Phil Woolas through the Libel Courts (which, incidentally, remains the right of Elwyn Watkins as the defamed Lib Dem candidate) would potentially achieve a number of things. There may be a cash pay-out, and Elwyn's "good name" cleared. But what it would have no power to do is deal with the big issue - Phil Woolas has something in his possession something he would not have had without knowingly and intentionally lying about his opponent. Being MP of Oldham East and Saddleworth Parliamentary Constituency. Should he be allowed to keep his ill-gotten gains?

It's a pretty specific case - stealing an election through knowingly lying about an opponent - and requires quite specific legislation. It's called Election Law. I don't think this case opens the floodgates to more actions in the future - any more than the last such successful case just 91 years ago did.

Iain should ask for his money back.