UTV News - Six disputed Fermanagh votes lost

Subscribe to the News Feed Newsback to News

Six disputed Fermanagh votes lost

Text Size:  A  A |  POST A COMMENT |  PRINT |  SHARE 
Michelle Gildernew and Rodney Connor
Senior judges have expressed astonishment that 47,000 accepted votes were not trawled through to identify six disputed papers in Unionist unity candidate Rodney Connor's General Election defeat to Sinn Fein.

Details of a key part of Mr Connor's legal challenge to losing the Fermanagh and South Tyrone poll have emerged ahead of next week's hearing into the result.

He was beaten by Sinn Fein's Michelle Gildernew by four votes after three recounts.

Mr Connor is claiming there were breaches of the statutory rules and is seeking a scrutiny of the votes, a recount and a determination that Ms Gildernew was not duly elected.

The victorious Sinn Fein candidate insists, however, that she was properly returned as MP for the area in May.

Part of Mr Connor's case involves claims that more votes were found in some ballot boxes than had been issued.

Judges who are due to hear the petition when it opens in Dungannon next week heard a further claim that some papers should not have counted.

Paul Maguire QC, for the returning officer, said: "For the first time there is a factual situation described in which it is alleged certain votes, wholly unidentifiable, ought to have been rejected."

Mr Maguire argued these were not going to be put before the court for any examination.

Patrick Good, appearing for Mr Connor, said there was a "practical difficulty" in the six votes being among 47,000 admitted in the count.

He told the review hearing at the High Court in Belfast that one witness, James Cooper, saw four votes which should have been rejected.

Mr Connor's election agent wife Liz identified a further two votes which should not have been included, it was claimed.

After being told of the situation, Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan, sitting with Mr Justice Gillen, said: "The Court sees enormous difficulty if these votes are not identified."

He pointed out that, if Mr Connor is right, the six in dispute "make all the difference".

Sir Declan added: "Your evidence is likely to be that you have two witnesses who claim votes should have been rejected. The deputy returning officer who examined them decided they shouldn't be rejected but should be admitted.

"The Court is not going to be able to see the votes. I have to confess, for my own part, I'm astonished, even if it did require consideration of 47,000 votes, that some process wasn't put in place over the summer."

Despite expressing concern Sir Declan confirmed that the Election Court case was ready to proceed on Monday.

He also warned all sides that once the three-day hearing begins it would not be stopped for any discovery issues.

© UTV News

Send to a friend

Email To
Your Name
Comment
Close
At 09:18 on 08 September 2010, Ulysses32 wrote:
Your right, James. Surprise, surprise Cooper cried foul then as well. Allegation after allegation with no substance or evidence. Kind of like Groundhog day for the UUP or UNCUNF or whatever they call themselves these days. Talk about bad losers.
At 18:41 on 07 September 2010, big ernest wrote:
this man is a disgrace , when would republicans and sf ever rig an election ? next he will be saying that republicans have been voting more than once !!
At 16:47 on 07 September 2010, Ulysses32 wrote:
So let me get this straight. You bring a case to court with no evidence at all other than my mate and the wife claim they saw misdoings? What sort of case is that? Who's forking out th money for this case anyway?
At 13:02 on 07 September 2010, James wrote:
I wonder is the said James Copper the same candidate who lost in the Westminster Eelction against Michelle Gildernew in 2001
Post a comment
Name:
Email Address:
Location:
Your Comment:
Verification Code: Captcha Code  Get New Code
POST COMMENT
[Before posting, please take a moment to familiarise yourself with our house rules. All comments are moderated and will not appear immediately. Any information you enter, including email and web addresses, will be displayed on our site if passed by our moderators.]