Business leaders in east London are under criminal investigation over claims of voting irregularities and a suspected plot to influence a key planning referendum.
Tower Hamlets council called a vote in November last year on plans to shape the next decade of development in the historic Spitalfields area, with residents voting in favour but businesses rejecting the proposals.
The Spitalfields neighbourhood plan had been drawn up to guide planning decisions until 2035, in the fashionable area of east London near to the Square Mile which includes Brick Lane, Queen Anne’s Christ Church, and the famous Spitalfields Market.
But following the referendum, police were called in to probe the business “no” vote, amid suspicions of a “possible conspiracy to subvert the referendum”, allegations of multiple voting, and claims that some business owners had exerted “undue influence” to sway the vote against the council’s plan.
News of the investigation emerged after a judge at Westminster magistrates court granted police and the Crown Prosecution Service an extra 12 months to complete the investigation and decide on possible criminal charges.
Timothy Straker KC, representing the CPS, said offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983 are being considered, in a “complex” inquiry needing the input of specialist lawyers.
Arrests and specialist examination of ballot papers are under consideration as the probe progresses.
According to legal papers obtained by the Evening Standard, the Met’s special inquiry team is leading the probe, in a borough with a recent history of election troubles. In 2015, mayor Lutfur Rahman was found guilty by an election court of corrupt and illegal practices during the 2014 election campaign, leading to his removal from office amid findings of widespread voting corruption.
He maintained his innocence and served a ban before making a triumphant return to be elected as executive mayor of Tower Hamlets in May this year. The Spitalfields neighbourhood plan was drawn up during the mayoralty of his predecessor, Labour’s John Biggs, who had faced local opposition to his approach to planning in the historic district.
In evidence to district judge Michael Snow in October, detective constable Melissa Gillam said the business vote, with 70 against and 18 in favour, raised suspicions as a “No” vote is an “unusual occurrence” in a local planning referendum. She identified breaches of leaflet and spending rules as possible offences, along with suspicions that businesses had voted more than once.
