Ruling by the Deputy Returning Officer on multiple complaints and Appeal outcome by the Returning Officer
Deputy Returning Officer Ruling - 24th February 2026
I have received and reviewed two complaints relating to the conduct of a candidate for President (PG) in the Leadership Elections.
Complaint 1
The complaint alleges that the candidate displayed posters in a College Bar without permission, in breach of Rule 4.10 (Fly-posting (displaying promotional material on public property or private land without the owner's consent), graffiti and other forms of defacement are illegal in Cambridge and must not be used.)
I have seen evidence that posters of the candidate were put up on the walls of a College Bar. I have seen evidence that it is college policy not to give permission for this.
I note that guidance has been issued to candidates through both the candidate briefing and through a dedicated email about posters in colleges sent on Saturday. I further note that while the guidance advises that, where permission is granted, posters should be put on notice boards, in this case posters are affixed directly to the wall in the bar.
Complaint 2
The complaint alleges, and I am satisfied that, the candidate was disrespectful to a member of Cambridge SU staff at a mobile polling station earlier in the day. This breaches Rule 1.3 (Candidates and their campaigners must treat students, other candidates and their campaign teams, staff, and the general public with respect, engage in civil debate and not campaign negatively or harass.) which is a rule that was also specifically drawn to candidates’ attention in an email on Saturday.
The complaint also suggests that Rule 4.6 (Candidates and their campaign team are not permitted to use the University of Cambridge, College, or the Students’ Union logos within their promotion or campaigning materials.) was breached by the candidate using the manifesto booklet, which contains the SU logo, as a campaigning tool. This is a technical breach, but I am satisfied that, given the candidate was campaigning, this is unlikely to have created an impression that the candidate was endorsed by the SU. I have therefore not taken this offence into account in this ruling, however wish to make clear that this does not excuse disrespect to SU staff.
The complaint further indicates, and I am satisfied that, the candidate breached Rule 4.9 (Candidates, their campaign teams, or any other person attempting to influence a voter must be further than three metres away from an individual when they are casting their ballot.) by attempting to engage in campaign-related conversation at a less than 3m distance while a candidate was casting their ballot at the polling station.
Ruling
Considering these two complaints, one of which includes multiple breaches, and the serious nature of the breaches, in particular the disrespect shown to Cambridge SU staff working to fairly promote and support all candidates, I have decided to impose a campaign ban of 24 hours on the candidate.
Roman Shainskyi must not conduct any campaigning activities from 12pm (midday) on Tuesday 24th February until 12pm (midday) on Wednesday 25th February. I have delayed the ban to 12pm to ensure that the candidate can appeal this ruling if they wish, and not be disadvantaged if the appeal is upheld.
During the period of the campaign ban, all forms of campaigning are prohibited - this includes soliciting votes in person or online, posting of any social media posts, flyering or any activity actively seeking to promote their candidacy. Any breach of the campaign ban should be reported with evidence to the Deputy Returning Officer via the complaints form.
These are serious complaints. This ruling should also serve as a formal and final warning to the candidate. In the event of any further substantive breach of the Leadership Elections rules coming to my attention, including any breach of this campaign ban, there will be a presumption of disqualification.
This ruling was appealed by the candidate to the Returning Officer.
The Returning Officer agreed to temporarily suspend the ban whilst reviewing the appeal.
Returning Officer Appeal Finding - 24th February 2026
I have reviewed the original complaint and evidence, the Deputy Returning Officer’s decision, and the appeal email sent by the candidate. I have also sought additional input from SU staff and from the relevant college.
In relation to the first complaint regarding the displaying of posters without permission, I am satisfied that the posters were displayed on unauthorised walls rather than on the authorised noticeboard. I am also satisfied that this was done in contravention of college policy.
The appellant claims that they were given permission to display the posters by an unknown member of staff, however, and this cannot be disproved.
In relation to the second complaint regarding disrespectful behaviour towards SU staff, I am satisfied that the staff in question felt the candidate’s behaviour towards them was disrespectful, even though the candidate maintains their behaviour was appropriate.
I find that there was a de facto breach of college policy in the placing of posters in the bar area, although I accept this may have been accidental.
I also find that SU staff felt the candidate’s behaviour was disrespectful, although I accept the candidate did not feel their behaviour was inappropriate.
I therefore partially uphold the appeal. I find that breaches of the rules occurred as outlined in the DRO ruling, but that there is ambiguity over intent.
I am therefore reducing the time of the campaign ban accordingly from 24 hours to 12 hours. The temporarily suspended ban was re-imposed at 17.00 on 24/2/26 and so remains in force until 5.00 on 25/2/26.