Investigation concludes into Rainham and Wennington election fraud finds no evidence of a criminal offence.
Allegations of election fraud for the Rainham and Wennington ward results on the night of the local elections, Thursday May 5, has now been concluded by the Met Police’s Special Enquiry Team and has concluded that no criminal offence was found.
The long night in May saw several re-counts including Hylands ward and then Rainham and Wennington ward where councillors complained that irregularities had visibly taken place. It is believed CCTV footage from the count was gathered by police in the investigation.
A third recount was then undertaken on Monday ( May 9) at the Town Hall in Romford, where police officers were present due to the bad feelings amongst certain councillors and council officers.
Despite many allegations, the case has now concluded and the result stands.
A spokesperson for the Met Police told the Havering Daily:
“We can confirm that following receipt of an allegation of electoral fraud in relation to the post-election count for Rainham and Wennington Wards, an investigation was undertaken by the Met’s Special Enquiry Team and no evidence of a criminal offence was found.
“The investigation is now concluded.”
The three councillors Sue Ospreay, Jackie McArdle and Sarah Edwards are very popular community champions in the area and were indeed the people’s choice due to their endless hardwork and complete commitment to Rainham and Wennington.
Discover more from The Havering Daily
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
To Havering Daily,
I responded to the Met Police’s Special Enquiry Team’s outcome report requesting a meaningful investigation. See below:-
Dear DI Trevor Normoyle,
I do not believe DC Burton has carried out a meaningful investigation of my complaint of serious election fraud. He has merely accepted a claim ‘the votes tallied’! Except this is impossible and because the fraud involved switching ballots not simply adding or removing ballots.
I explained why and said candidates, senior counting officers and clerks on the R&W table should all be interviewed.
Despite agreeing to seek further information the absence of any details in his outcome report appears to show otherwise. This is very poor conduct as my points should have been elementary matters for any genuine investigation.
The fraud on election night, specifically saw a candidate with 20 years public service lose office and potentially 2 other candidates, including myself, with a combined 32 years public service as councillors losing the election too.
The specific fraud on the night was the switching of a bundle of 57 verified block votes for a bundle of 54 mixed votes, that altered the outcome of the election.
A bundle that was by chance discovered just prior to the recount, after the election agent who had called for the recount was seen repeatedly behind the tables. This could not have been by accident as the R&W table was a distance from an open doorway.
And potentially this fraud impacts on the entire election as access to replacement ballot papers undermines the integrity of all the postal votes which were about a third of the total R&W vote.
This was a high stakes election and the council leader/election agent had the motive, temperament and opportunity to commit the fraud with the connivance of senior officers who feared for their jobs.
Indeed the choice of venue, poor layout and security, no CCTV of the R&W table and fearful employees all contribute to conditions assisting fraud and was the responsibility of the Chief Executive/Returning Officer.
A Returning Officer (RO) who not only allowed a questionable recount (the 34 margin was big due to the new method of counting), but also allowed the recount to continue despite the person who called for the recount going behind the tables, contaminating the area.
The RO said to me he “had to complete the process” and I had to legally challenge the recount decision afterwards!!! Except the process allows a RO to refuse a recount, particularly after the election agent who had called for the recount was seen behind the tables, so he could have cancelled the recount requiring the other side to challenge the decision afterwards.
The Fraud
Due to a growing number of mixed votes election counts were taking a very long time to count and far longer if recounts were held. To improve matters a new system of counting was introduced that still took a long time but was very accurate and avoided recounts.
This involves counting the block votes (3 votes for the same party) separately from mixed votes. The block votes were put into ‘party’ trays and the mixed votes were put in a separate tray and then spread out (not bundled) on skirts.
At the end the block votes are double checked, then bundled into 20s and held with an elastic band. Every 5 x 20 were bundled into 100s. The final RIRA top block vote bundle was 20+20+17. A piece of paper showed the bundle as 57.
This is confirmed by the senior counting officer before they can verify the result and was shown on the verification print out. And yet this bundle of block votes allegedly became a bundle of 54 mixed votes.
Firstly this is impossible because if so, the vote could not have been initially verified without finding the missing 3 votes.
Uncanny but during the initial counting of votes there was 1 ballot paper missing. The senior officer Neil Stubbings asked counters to look for it and it was found stuck to another ballot and once found the result was verified.
I suggest the election agent who was repeatedly behind the tables and on the phone wanted to find out the size of the RIRA top bundle, inform associates and replace it with an appropriately mixed bundle. Except he mistook the 57 for 54, probably due to the 7 being crossed continental style.
The difference in size is evidence the bundle was switched. Neil Stubbings said the bundle was “20+20+14”. And the claim it was a mixed bundle is evidence of fraud too.
This is because mixed votes are not bundled. Under the new counting system they are put on ‘skirts’. That is they are spread out next to each other so that all the mixed votes can be counted accurately, removing the need for recounts (or making them easy).
In short
• The block vote 57 bundle could not have become 54 because the original count couldn’t have been verified without finding the missing 3 ballots.
• Bundles of block votes could not become bundles of mixed votes because mixed votes are not bundled but put on ‘skirts’.
Maybe its difficult to visualise what I’m saying, but its elementary. This is why instead of a few phones calls, those involved should have been interviewed as I know Neil Stubbings was deeply distressed by it all. Particularly as I say his description of the bundle “20+20+14” is evidence of the fraud as it couldn’t have been 54 and mixed votes aren’t bundled.
Please confirm you will consider my points and conduct a meaningful investigation.
Regards
David Durant