Appeal Finding 03/01/2026
In addition to the candidate’s appeal in response to the Deputy Returning Officer (DRO) ruling of disqualification made 26th February, I have reviewed all the evidence considered by the DRO in the context of both this ruling and the earlier ruling made 24th February, as well as all previous email submissions made by the candidate.
The candidate received an initial sanction and warning from the DRO on 24th February. This was in relation to three separate heads of complaint, including a breach of Rule 4.9 - the requirement to remain more than 3 metres away from voters while they are casting their vote.
Candidates are given a clear overview of all the Rules, including 4.9, before the start of campaigning. As there was also a final reminder in the DRO ruling of 24th February about the need to respect that Rule, I consider there could be no possible justification for further incidents of breaching Rule 4.9. I consider it would have been reasonable to expect that the candidate would, following this warning, have been particularly careful not to breach or appear to breach Rule 4.9. In subsequent emails to Returning Officers however, the candidate has not denied handling or being in very close proximity to students’ phones to help them use the voting system.
I am satisfied that the candidate had received sufficient warning in the DRO ruling of 24th February that any further substantive rule breaches would result in a presumption of disqualification.
Subsequent to that ruling, a further 6 complaints were received of which 4 related to the same behaviour for which the candidate had already been sanctioned, each of which would constitute a ‘further substantive rule breach’. The candidate has not denied touching a student’s phone in the context of at least one of these 4 incidents.
I am satisfied that the DRO ruling to disqualify the candidate should stand and I do not uphold the appeal.
Additional Complaint
A further complaint was submitted during voting and, while the candidate had been able to respond to the complaint, the DRO ruling was not available until 28th February. The complaint was again that the candidate had interfered with a student’s voting and it was accompanied by photo evidence. Moreover, the student requested their vote be reset as they had not wished or intended to vote for the candidate.
I am satisfied this confirms the pattern of behaviour that has appeared in multiple complaints about this candidate and so I again confirm the DRO’s decision to disqualify the candidate.
Note: In their appeal, the candidate has made serious allegations about the behaviour of other students who, they allege, attempted to disrupt and interfere with the candidate’s campaigning activities. These allegations were made after the close of voting however, do not seem to refer to other candidates or their campaign teams and so cannot be taken under the Elections Rules. These accusations should, though, be followed up by the SU and where appropriate dealt with under the correct procedure, which is the Member Disciplinary Procedure.