Report comment

A reminder to the unlikely few who actually are not part of this faux outrage, supposedly on excessive or derisory costs, but are bona fide members of the legal profession not otherwise interested in the political side of things: Lutfur Rahman has NEVER actually been convicted of an offence, indictable or otherwise, for the purpose of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, after being found guilty of such by a jury of his peers (and all that).

A bit of modern English public and administrative law here: Therefore, the SRA cannot simply use the judgment of the electoral court from 2014 as the sole reason, only as evidence. The Administrative Court and Wednesbury unreasonable, anyone?!