Respondent

KO WALKER
05 January 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CLAIM NO: C0/6545/2016

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
IN THE MATIER OF:

APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION BY JONATHAN

BISHOP AGAINST THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION

BETWEEN:

JONATHAN BISHOP AND CROCELS

COMMUNITY MEDIA GROUP
Applicant
-and-

---------------------------- -THC-EtECTffimLCONrMTSSION
Respondent

WITNESS STATEMENT OF KAY DAWN WALKER

I, KAY DAWN WALKER, of 3 Bunhill Row, London EC1Y 8YZ hereby STATE as
follows:

1.

I am an employee of, and the Enforcement Manager at the Electoral

Commission {"the Commissionn}.

2.

I am duly authorised to make this Witness Statement for and on behalf of the
Commission.

3.

I am known in my role at the Commission by the name of Kay Dawn Storey.

4.

My responsibilities at the Commission include operational responsibility for the

running of and the work of the Enforcement team and also making decisions

P.1

on behalf of the Commission as to whether there has been compliance with

the law or if offences have been committed.
5.

I make this Witness Statement in support of the Commission's response to

the application made by Jonathan Bishop for an injunction against the
Commission. I am willing to attend Court and to give evidence if necessary.

6.

I make this Statement from matters within my own knowledge. Where matters
are not within my knowledge, I make this Statement from matters within my
information and belief.

7.

In order to assist the Court I have divided my Statement into the following
headings:
a) a summary history of the formerly registered party Action on Digital
Addiction and Cyberstalking
b) an overview of the Commission's relevant functions
c) an overview of the Commission's investigation
d) an overview of the investigation findings
e) the relevance of publication of findings in respect of offences
Summary history of the formerly registered party Action on Digital
Addiction and Cyberstalking

8. Action on Digital Addiction and Cyberstalking (ADAC) was a political party

registered by the Commission under the Political Parties Elections and
.
.
Referendums Act2000 (PPERA}. It was deregistered on 18 November2016.

9. ADAC was first registered with the Commission as minor party on 21 March

2012 as 'The Pluralist Party'. A minor party is a party which makes a

declaration that it intends only to contest one or more parish or community
elections, (see section 28(2)(d) PPERA) and has less onerous reporting
requirements; in particular a minor party is not required .to submit annual
statements of accounts whereas a political party must (see section 34
PPERA).

P.2

-ttt-On-ttl1~arcn015

I he Pftlralist PartY changed its party status from a minor

party to a political party, and as such became liable to comply with the
requirement under section 45 of PPERA to deliver an annual statement of
accounts to the Commission.

11. On 26 October 2015 The Pluralist Party changed its name to Action on Digital
Addiction and Cyberstalking.

12. The Party's constitution and financial scheme appear to at times conflate the
Party and an entity called 'The Crocels Cooperators Party'. The constitution
refers to the Party being a member of the 'Crocels Community Media Group'.

The Commission regulates only the political party named 'Action on Digital
Addiction and Cyberstalking' for the purposes of PPERA.
The Commission's relevant functions

13. The Electoral Commission is an independent body set up under PPERA Its
functions are set out unCfer ffieAct. They include regulating the compliance
by political parties and certain other organisations and individuals with

requirements under PPERA and other legislation (see section 145 of PPERA}.
14. The requirements under PPERA include a number of obligations on
treasurers and of relevance to this case is the obligation on the treasurer of
registered parties to submit annual statements of account (see section 45).

Failure to deliver a statement of accounts to the Commission within the

prescribed period, without reasonable excu$e, is a criminal offence (section
47).
15. The Commission found Mr Bishop as treasurer of "Action on Digital Addiction
and Cyberstalking" Party ("ADAC"), to have committed an offence under
section 47 regarding the accounts for-the year to 31 December2015.
16. The Commission's finding of an offence does not amount to a conviction, and
is not recorded as such by the Disclosure and Barring Service.

P.3

17. The Commission may issue civil sanctions where certain offences and other
breaches have been committed under PPERA (see Schedule 19C).
18. The Commission carries out its regulatory duties in accordance with its
statutory Enforcement Policy, which is available on its website. The Policy
includes provisions on when to undertake investigations, whether and what
sanctions may be imposed for any breaches its finds, and what information is
published about its investigations.
The Investigation

19. The financial year end for Action on Digital Addiction and Cyberstalking was
31 December. The deadline for submitting the 2015 statement of accounts
(not in excess of 250,000) was therefore 30 April 2016 {section 45 PPERA).
20.ADAC was required by PPERA to confirm to the Commission by 31 October
that their details on the register of political parties remained accurate or to
update the Commission if any changes had occurred. This process was
entirely separate from and unconnected with the investigation.
21.An investigation was commenced on 14 November2016 in accordance with
the Commission's Enforcement Policy.
22. On 18 November 2016 ADAC was statutorily deregistered by the
..

Commission. The Commission is required to deregister political parties if, as

happened with ADAC, they fail to confirm their registered particulars in any
given year (section 33(2A)). The deregistration process is entirely separate to
the investigation.
23. Following notification that the party had been deregistered Mr Bishop called
Josh Dunne (Registration Adviser) on 18 November 2016. The
Commission's record of that cQnversation includes the following note of the
advice Josh Dunne gave regarding returns:

"The parties returns and its renewal are separate ...As far as I am aware the
4
P.4

party has no further returns donation or loan returns, but if the party does
have any further returns then they will need to provide these even though they
are now deregistered."
24. In the course of the investigation Josh Dunne confirmed that apart from an
email contact in April 2016 (regarding the registration of new emblems) he
had not spoken to Mr Bishop since October 2015, which again was a
communication regarding emblems.
25. On 22 November 2016 the Commission wrote to Jonathan Bishop, treasurer
of ADAC, to ask him to (ij submit the statement of accounts and {ii) to explain

why the statement of accounts were overdue as they should have been
submitted by 30 April 2016.
26.Jonathan Bishop replied by four emails sent at the following dates and times:

Tue 22111/2016 20:11

-----------------wed 2311112016 01:13

-------------~-----

Wed 23/11/2016 01:31

Wed 23/11/2016 01 :50
27.Jonathan Bishop attached a letter dated 22 November 2016 to the first of the
above emails. In his letter Mr Bishop stated that,
{i)

the letter should be treated "as a counter-claim under the pre-action

protocol for judicial review in respect of the decision to-deregisterthe

party and professional negligence against Josh Dune.. "
(ii)

"The reason I did not submit the accounts is simple. I was told by Josh
Dune that after enough quarters of NIL returns I would not have to
make any more. When I logged into the website it confirmed that I did
not have to make any further submissions. Therefore, because the
party's annual accounts were a NIL return, it was my understanding
that Jdid not need to submit them. On receiving notification from Josh
Dune that the party was deregistered and speaking with him
5

P.5

personally, I immediately logged into the website to submit the

accounts as a NIL return. n
(iii)

''The Croce/s Cooperators Party, trading as Action on Digital Addiction

and Cyberstalking ("the pafV), is a member of the Crocels Community
Media Group, whose accounting period started on 1 January 2015 and
ended on 80 June 2016, and therefore the accounts were submitted
within time based on the Group's financial year, namely 30 November
2016. We have not been given the opportunity to update our records to
reflect this financial year."

(
I

28..Mr Bishop writes ".. .that after enough quarters of NIL returns ... n First it
should be noted that the Commission has no record of any person at the
Commission providing any advice that Mr Bishop did not need to submit a
statement of accounts. Secondly, the reference to "quarters of NIL returns . n
is not relevant to submission of statements of accounts but rather to delivery
of reports relating to donations and loans
29. It Is also important to note that the conversation between Mr Bishop and Josh
D.unne took place on 18 November 2018, more than 6 months after the
deadline when the statement of accounts was due, i.e. on 30 April 2016.
30. The second email referred to above sent Wed 23/11/2016 01.:13 attached a

letter in support of the argument at (iii) above claiming the party's financial
. year was from 1January2015 to 30 June 2016.
31. The third email referred to above sent Wed 23/11/2016 01 :31 attached the
same letter referred to in paragraph 19 above, together with a completed
Treasurer's Statement Form by way of a response to the investigation, in
which Mr Bishop stated:

"Reason for delay: The accounting period for the Croce/s Community Media
Group has been changed to 1 January 2015 to 30 June 2016 and the date for
.the Party needs to change to reflect this."
6

P.6

32.1 n the fourth referred to email above sent Wed 23/1112016 01 :50 Mr Bishop
wrote:

"I forgot to add the first limb of why the submission of accounts was not on the
date expected by the Commission to the official form, which is in the attached
version. The second limb was added following consultation with Croce/s's
Chief Personnel, Strategy & Quality Officer, Marie Beech. Please used the
attached in place of the one submitted at 01 :30, which is in co!Jcordance with
my letters served on you personally on 22 November 2016 and on behalf of
the Party on 23 November 2016."
(\

and he expanded on his previous response to the investigation by way of a

further Treasurer's Statement Form in which he stated:
"Reason for delay: Because Josh Dune told the Treasuer that after a series of
NIL returns no further submissions were necessary, the Treasuer did not see
the necesstfY of submitting the NIL return for the Party accounts as having

inspected the online system he was under the impression that it was not a
requirement for him to do so. Equally, the accounting period for the Grocers
Community Media Group has been changed to 1 January 2015 to 30 June
2016 and the date for the Party needs to change to reflect this. The accounts,
submitted on 22 November 2016, would have been submitted on time had this
been the accounting year."
(\
33. On 29 November 201 ~ Jonathan Bishop completed the process of submitting

a document via PEF Online. On 5 December the Commission decided that

this docl,lment could not be accepted as a valid submission because it did not
match the party's financial year, but referred to 18 months and it did not
include a statement of assets.
34. Louise Edwards (Head of Regulation) wrote to Mr. Bishop on 29 November
2016 and 1 December 2016, to explain that the counterclaim was a separate
issue from the investigation. Joseph Harrington also wrote to Mr. Bishop on
29 November 2016 to the same effect
7

P.7

35. On 5 December 2016 Joseph Harrington asked Mr Bishop to amend the

return which he did in his email dated 5 December 2016 and this 2015 SOA
was accepted as valid by the Commission.
36. The 2015 SOA submitted on 5 December 2016 was therefore submitted some
219 days after the deadline of 30 April 2016. The party's accounts reported nil
income and expenditure during 2015, confirming that the accounts were ~ue
no later than 30 April 2016.
37. On 10 December 2016 Mr Bishop wrote to the Commission by email

enclosing a further letter. In the email Mr Bishop re-iterated the point "It.
makes no difference what the factual reasons relating to why I did not submit
the accounts - Josh Dunne led me to believe I did not have to . " though again .
without providing any details as to dates when this happened. The rest of the
email and letter was concerned with the question of registration and reregistration which was beyond the scope of the investigation.
38. On 16 December the Commission decided that it should not impose any
sanction on Mr Bishop.
39. On 20 December the Commission wrote to Mr Bishop to inform him that it had
found an offence had been committed but that it had decided not to impose a

sanction. It should be noted t~at PPERA does not Include provision for
repre~entations where the

Commission has determined that offences under

PPERA have been committed, but decides to impose no civil sanction.

However opportunities for representations are always given, as they were in
this matter. The Commission has considered Mr Bishop's representations but
nevertheless remained satisfied.that the offence had been committed.
Investigation Findings

40. The Investigation concluded that an offence under section 47(1)(b) PPERA
had been committed by Mr Bishop on the basis that (i) Jonathan Bishop was
the registered treasurer of the party at the relevant times (ii) the 2015
8

P.8

---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Statement of Accounts had not been delivered by 30 April 2016 and (iii) that
Mr Bishop had not provided a reasonable excuse.

41. The conclusion that there was no reasonable excuse was reached as the two
arguments that Mr Bishop had put forward were not accepted. Those two
arguments were, firstly that he had been misadvised by Josh Dunne, and
secondly that the accounting year had changed.
42. The first argument was not accepted as it was clear that the advice Josh
Dunne gave on 18 November 2016 was specifically qualified to say that if
there were any returns outstanding they would need to be provided.
(\

Moreover, it was .clear that at the material time, i.e. prior to 30 April 2016 Josh
Dunne had not discussed the issue of returns, or m?re particularly the
statement of accounts, with Mr Bishop at all.
43. The second argument was not accepted because {Q the Commission had no
record of a notification by the party of change of accounting year (ii) Mr
Bishop had provided no evidence that the Commission was notified of this
and (iii) the purported accounting year given as 18 months could not be a
valid accounting year.
44. In order to make a change to the financial year a party would need to apply to
the Commission (see section 26(7) PPERA). The Commission's records

f\.

show that no change in the financial year was made by the Party. Moreover
the financial scheme detailed in the party's Constitution states as follows
"Treasurer's mandate - The treasurer of the Party will ensure that any
proposed amendments to the financial scheme in Schedule I are submitted to
the Commission for approval"
45. The financial year which Mr Bishop claimed is a period of 18 months and
accordingly could not be considered a financial year under PPERA (see
sections 40(1) and 41 (6) and {7).

P.9

...

Publication of findings of offences

46.As the statutory regulator of political party finance, with a duty to "monitor-and
secure compliance (section 145 PPERA), it is imperative that the
Commission is able to alert the public and stakeholders of the outcome of its
investigations into breaches of legislative requirements without delay, to
maintain public confidence in the statutory controls, and act as a deterrent to
those who might commit breaches in the future. Delay in publication would
prejudice the effective execution of its duties.
47. The Commission's investigation into ADAC and its planned publication of its
finding of an offence but also the decision to impose no sanction are in
accordance with its Enforcement Policy. It is a statutory obligation for the
Commission to produce an Enforcement Policy (Sch.19C para 25' of PPERA),
and which was widely consulted on (also a statutory requirement).
48. The Commission is also under a duty to include in its annual report to
Parliament a report on its .use of civil sanctions (Sch.19C para 27 of PPERA).
While it is not statutorily required to include information on the outcome of
investigations that resulted in no civil sanctions, it nevertheless does so, in
order to provide a complete picture of its regulatory activity.
49. The Commission publishes the findings of its investigations on the next
monthly date for publication after an investigation has been concluded. The
next publication date in respect of the investigation into ADAC and Mr Bishop

'U

is 17 January 2017.
I believe that the facts stated in this Statement are true.

Signed:

Dated: ..05/0112017 ..

KAY DAWN WALKER

10

P.10