Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
A Reform UK candidate who sued over her election defeat – using fake AI-“hallucinated” legal officers to support her case – has lost and been handed a £19,000 court bill.
Liz Williams was removed from office in the rural Worcestershire election after being defeated in dramatic scenes by Green candidate Hannah Robson following a recount in May.
This led to the election being decided at random, with two ballot papers placed in a box and Mrs Robson’s name drawn out, ensuring victory for the Green candidate, who took her seat on the county council.
Mrs Williams filed a High Court petition challenging the result, citing allegations of a bizarre ‘names out of a hat’ style random draw as well as irregularities at polling stations.
But her case was dismissed last week because it was filed too late, with a senior judge also noting that it was supported by a legal authority that none of the lawyers had heard of.
Mr Justice Martin Spencer said no records of the officers cited by Mrs Williams could be found, one of them believed to date back to the First World War.
“It appears that this may be an invention of AI, in fact a hallucination,” he said.
He also ordered her to pay £19,000 towards the costs of the case, a decision Mrs Williams said left her feeling “oppressed and silenced” and which would “destroy my life.”
The court heard that Mrs Williams and Mrs Robson were rival candidates for the Littletons ward of Worcestershire County Council in May – which covers three small villages – when there was an unexpected heat wave.
According to Mrs Williams’ petition, a series of recounts at the Pershore Leisure Center resulted in the rivals being tied at 889 votes each, with the traditional party candidate trailing.
She says, “The declared result was determined simply by folding two used election ballot papers and placing them in a ballot box and taking one out by the Deputy Returning Officer.”
“The petitioner believes that the process was not conducted in accordance with due process of law, was prone to fraud and corruption and was not given time to obtain independent legal advice when pressured into accepting the process in principle.
“I did not feel able to watch the entire process unobstructed, nor to have my concerns heard at that time.
“I couldn’t see the box for all the preparation and wasn’t involved in it.
“I did not agree with any third person altering the papers. Once they went into the ballot box, only the returning officer should have had his hands in the box.”
Mrs Williams also complained of “fraud”, citing irregularities on polling day, including alleged canvassing based on polling stations.
However, the case was dismissed when lawyers representing the returning officers pointed out that their petition was filed a day outside the 21-day limit after the elections.
Mrs Williams claimed she was within the time limit, claiming that time only started running when the winner was declared, not when the voting took place.
As part of their case, they cited two cases – titled “R v Hackney ex parte Sidebotham 1912” and “The Mayor of Tower Hamlets v Electoral Commission 2015” – which were said to provide important legal precedents in electoral disputes.
However, the returning officers’ barrister Timothy Straker Casey said he had conducted an extensive search of the cases, and could find nothing online or on paper.
The judge said the issue was raised before the hearing with Mrs Williams, who accepted there were “errors” in the documents she originally filed.
He said that legal authorities – past court decisions used by lawyers to support their cases – appear to be AI-generated, and said he would not criticize them.
But in dismissing Mrs Williams’ petition, he said the law provides a 21-day limit for challenges to be filed after an election – and she missed that deadline.
“The petition was not presented within the time limit prescribed by section 129(1) [of the Representation of the People Act 1983],” He said.
“The primary law does not confer any power on the court to extend the time for presenting the petition.
“In my judgment, the defendants’ application is successful. The petition was not submitted in time and I believe it should be dismissed.”
Finding against her, he also ordered Mrs Williams to pay £19,000 towards the returning officers’ lawyers’ bills.
Although very rare, this is not the first time that a council election in Britain has ended in a heated exchange between two candidates, leading to the winner being chosen at random.
In Blyth in 2007, the winner in a ward was chosen by drawing straws, while in Yorkshire in 2022 a candidate offered to play poker to decide the winner before straws were drawn.
The Election Commission’s guidance to returning officers states: “When two or more candidates have the same number of votes, and the addition of one vote would entitle either of them to be declared elected, you must decide by lottery among the candidates.
“Whichever candidate wins is treated as if he had received additional votes enabling him to be declared elected.”