Appeal Finding - 26/2/26
I have reviewed the appeal email submitted by another candidate in the elections which requested that the Deputy Returning Officer’s ruling should be overturned and that the candidate should be disqualified. I have also reviewed the original decision made by the Deputy Returning Officer and the evidence they considered.
I have also taken into account subsequent communication between the SU and the University, which makes clear that the candidate was not responsible for or anticipating the post. There is no evidence of premeditation on the part of the candidate.
While I accept that the candidate was not responsible for the University posting on social media and that they took action after 2 hours to mitigate the impact of their campaign team’s inadvertent acceptance of the collaboration, it is impossible not to conclude that the candidate potentially received a significant advantage during those 2 hours. Indeed, the University post referencing the candidate remained visible overnight after the candidate removed the collaboration.
It is impossible for anyone to quantify the potential impact of the University’s post and I understand the strength of feeling of other candidates at the perceived advantage given to a rival candidate.
I accept there was no deliberate attempt to gain an electoral advantage by the candidate but my role is to ensure a free and fair election, creating where possible a level playing field in line with the rules. I believe that the Deputy Returning Officer’s ruling was made in line with these aims and I believe it was fair and proportionate to require the candidate to cease all campaigning at 13.30 on 26th February.
For these reasons, I do not uphold the appeal, and I therefore confirm that the decision made by the Deputy Returning Officer stands.
Separately, I will be recommending to the Elections team that the SU asks the University to be mindful of the potential impact of their posts during future elections.