The prospect of large attendances and the potential for public rowdiness did not amount to “special circumstances” within the meaning of section 130(6) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, such as to justify ordering an election petition to be tried outside the area of the authority for which the election was held.

Supperstone J so held when dismissing an application by the petitioners, Andrew Erlam, Debbie Simone, Azmal Hussein and Angela Moffat, for an order that the trial of their petition challenging the election of the first respondent, Mohammed Lutfur Rahman, on 22 May 2014 as Mayor of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and alleging breaches of duty by the second respondent, John Williams, the returning officer, should take place outside the borough.

SUPPERSTONE J said that the evidence fell far short of establishing the special circumstances that would warrant such an order. The long-standing provision in primary legislation requiring local trials indicated that the concept of “special circumstances” was unlikely to embrace concern about the number of attendees or the passion excited by political circumstances creating potential for public rowdiness. Section 131(2) of the 1983 Act gave the commissioner hearing the petition power to require “all constables and bailiffs” to assist the court in the execution of its duties; section 181(2) enabled him to request the Director of Public Prosecutions to attend the trial or send a representative if there were concerns about witness intimidation; and section 130(7) empowered him to adjourn the trial to a different place within the borough. Parliament had placed importance on the local electorate seeing justice being done and being able to participate in the process. The Royal Courts of Justice, the proposed alternative venue, would appear “a world away” to many ordinary electors in Tower Hamlets.