By David Young-
A judge is to summon a senior crown prosecutor to court to explain why they plan to drop election fraud charges against former police and crime commissioner candidate Jonathon Seed (pictured)
The 64-year-old Conservative councillor appeared at Oxford Crown Court on Monday morning, hoping that prosecutor Rhiannon Sadler would formally offer no evidence, and the judge pronounce him not guilty of making a ‘false statement’ on candidacy papers for the 2021 Wiltshire and Swindon crime commissioner election.
However, Judge Michael Gledhill QC rejected Ms Sadler’s explanation for the prosecution dropping and adjourning the case for a week and ordered the attendance of a senior CPS lawyer to ‘tell me in public why this decision has been taken’.
He told the prosecutor: “Putting it frankly, I am not a rubber stamp and I have severe misgivings about the prosecution’s decision because I haven’t been given the reasons and so I am going to require the prosecution to give me the reasons.”
The ex-police and crime commissioner (PCC) who had been charged with making a false declaration in his nomination papers will face no further action.
Jonathon Seed, 63, was elected to become Wiltshire’s PCC in May 2021, but withdrew after a historical driving conviction came to light.
The Conservative councillor denied a single charge of making a false statement and had been facing trial in July, and the Crown Prosecution Service decided to drop the charges.
A spokesperson said: “We have a duty to keep cases under continuing review and, following a further review, we concluded that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.”
Mr Seed, a Wiltshire councillor living in Chittoe Heath, Bromham, won the election with a combined total of 47% of the vote.
However, a previous driving conviction made him ineligible for the role and he withdrew.
A fresh election was held for the post in August 2021 and Conservative Philip Wilkinson was elected.
He had previously been told by Ms Sadler that a decision was taken to offer no evidence after Seed’s lawyers filed a formal statement in April setting out the defence he would run at trial.
He was expected to tell a jury did not realise his then 28-year-old conviction for drink driving disqualified him from standing as police and crime commissioner.
In law, any conviction for an ‘imprisonable’ offence automatically bars someone from standing for the job. Seed was fined – rather than jailed – in 1993 for drink driving, but because the offence carries a potential prison sentence he was ineligible to stand for commissioner.
The conviction came to light only after votes had been cast last May. The election had to be re-run at an anticipated cost of £1.5m. An investigation into the poll was conducted by Thames Valley Police’s fraud squad.
Seed was not the only candidate in the 2021 race to have failed to declare a previous conviction, Oxford Crown Court was told on Monday.
Defence barrister Richard Wormald QC said: “There was a candidate from the Green Party, Graham [Brig] Oubridge, who in almost identical terms he too had failed to declare he had been convicted of an imprisonable offence. In his case he had, indeed, been in prison – been sent to prison for three days, albeit I think 26 years ago.”
Mr Wormald said the decision to prosecute or not was ‘ultimately’ up to the CPS. His client had been told no evidence would be offered and was ‘entitled to receive his acquittal’.
Ms Sadler said that the case was reviewed after the defence case statement was received, albeit two-and-a-half months late – firstly by the CPS reviewing lawyer, then the head of the unit, the head of the division and, finally, by CPS head of special crime Nick Price.
Unimpressed Judge Gledhill said: “Who would like to come along tomorrow to explain to me the reasons for this decision? I haven’t been given any reasons apart from the fact it is in the public interest.”
Describing the case as ‘high-profile and sensitive’, he said the public was ‘entitled’ to a ‘full and proper explanation’ from the Crown.
Having already put the case back for five hours to enable the prosecutor to obtain more detailed instructions, the judge adjourned the case until Monday, July 11, for a senior CPS lawyer to appear before him. He allowed the lawyer to attend court via video link, but said he would have preferred him ‘to come along and look me in the eye’.
The judge warned Ms Sadler: “I don’t want platitudes, I want reasons.”
Following the hearing, Seed said: “Clearly, it has been a difficult day and this is not a result we’d have hoped for today, but the judge is absolutely right to satisfy himself as to why the CPS dropped this case so late in the day or, indeed, why they brought it in the first place.”
Under the Code for Crown Prosecutors, prosecutors review every case they receive from the police or other investigators on an ongoing basis, and take account of any change in circumstances that occurs as the case develops.
This includes what becomes known of the defence case, any further reasonable lines of inquiry that should be pursued, and receipt of any unused material that may undermine the prosecution case or assist the defence case, to the extent that charges should be altered or discontinued or the prosecution should not proceed.
If a case is to be stopped, care should be taken when choosing the method of termination, as this can affect the victim’s position under the Victims’ Right to Review scheme.
Wherever possible, prosecutors should consult the investigator when considering changing the charges or stopping the case.
Prosecutors and investigators work closely together, but the final responsibility for the decision whether or not a case should go ahead rests with the CPS.
A CPS spokesperson said: “We have a duty to keep cases under continuing review and, following a further review, we concluded that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.