header-logo header-logo

12 April 2016
Issue: 7694 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Controversial EU leaflet drop "not unlawful"

Referendum mail-out is within the law

The government’s EU referendum leaflet, which dropped through the nation’s letterboxes this week, may have provoked ire in some quarters but it was not unlawful according to a legal academic.

Neil Parpworth, principal lecturer, Leicester De Montfort Law School, says: “More than 200,000 people have signed an online petition demanding that the government desist from spending public money on a pro-EU leaflet due to land on our doormats shortly.

“Despite these objections, and putting to one side issues of fairness, posting out the leaflets will not be unlawful. Section 125(1)(c) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 imposes a restriction on the publication of any material by central government which ‘puts any arguments for or against any particular answer’ to a referendum question.

Although it clearly applies to the EU leaflets, crucially the restriction on publication is only effective during the ‘relevant period’, ie 28 days ending with the date of the poll (23 June). Accordingly, so long as the purdah period is respected, there seems to be no legal basis on which the government’s actions can be successfully challenged.”

The controversial leaflet cost £9.3m to produce and send out. Leave campaigners branded the exercise a waste of public money, but the government has defended its action on the basis the public have called for more information to help them make their minds up. A petition opposing the leaflet has attracted more than 200,000 signatures.

Michael Nash, who teaches at the University of East Anglia’s Norwich Business School, says: “The French Referendum on the implementation of the Treaty of Maastricht is a good example here.

“This was held on 20 September 1992, and resulted in a 51% majority of approval. Before the referendum, a copy of the Treaty was distributed to every home in France, at great expense, and many of the copies went straight into the dustbin.”

Issue: 7694 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll