Matt Goodwin cleared of sanction after judge finds Gorton and Denton by-election leaflet error was inadvertent
High Court action over leaflets linked to matt goodwin in the Gorton and Denton by-election has ended with a judge declining to impose sanctions, after the omission of a statutory imprint was found to be an inadvertent production error. The ruling removes the immediate risk of fines or disqualification for the candidate and his election agent.
Judge's ruling and legal basis under section 167
Mr Justice Butcher concluded that the omission of the statutory imprint amounted to an inadvertent illegal practice and that relief from sanctions was available under section 167. The judge said he was satisfied the act or omission arose from inadvertence or some other reasonable cause of a like nature and did not arise from a want of good faith. He also noted that appropriate steps had been taken to put the matter right.
Matt Goodwin: what happened with the leaflets
Lawyers for Matt Goodwin and his election agent, Adam Rawlinson, acknowledged at a previous hearing that a leaflet had been distributed without the legally required imprint. The leaflet, styled as an open letter from a local resident, was sent to voters in the constituency and did not state it had been funded and distributed by the party; it was sent from a "concerned neighbour. " The particular leaflet contained an open letter from Patricia Clegg, aged 74, who had switched her support from Labour to Reform UK.
Production error blamed on the printer
The barrister for Goodwin and Rawlinson described the omission as an honest administrative error caused by the printer. Evidence accepted by the judge indicated that during production a change of font at the last minute caused the statutory imprint to be truncated off the bottom of the leaflet. It was found that this font change was neither requested nor authorised by the campaign team.
Scale of distribution and legal exposure
Counsel confirmed that the leaflet was distributed to around 81, 000 voters in the constituency. Under the Representation of the People Act 1983, election material must include the name and address of those promoted by the document, the promoter, and the printer. Failure to include the statutory imprint is classed as an illegal practice and can carry penalties including a fine of up to £5, 000 and, in some circumstances, a three-year disqualification from elective office.
Responses from the printer and officials
The printer, identified in court papers as Hardings Print Solutions, admitted responsibility for the production error. The campaign team said proofs sent to the printer all included the imprint and were checked multiple times in the usual way. Lawyers representing the acting returning officer attended the hearing but made no representations. The Crown Prosecution Service and the acting returning officer had been made aware of the issue.
Court reasoning and immediate implications
Mr Justice Butcher accepted that the omission resulted from an error in the production phase and that it was not requested or desired by the claimants. The judge granted relief from sanctions on the eve of the by-election, finding that the breach was limited in scope, technical in nature, and had no material impact on the election. The campaign team argued that the Act permits a judge to refrain from imposing consequences when the illegal practice arises from inadvertence or accidental miscalculation and is not the result of bad faith.
What remains unclear and next steps
Certain operational details remain unclear in the provided context, including the printer's explanation for the last-minute font change. The legal finding closes the immediate sanctions avenue for Matt Goodwin and his election agent, while the printer has publicly accepted responsibility for the production error. Further developments may follow if regulatory or enforcement bodies take additional steps, but the court's ruling removed the prospect of immediate fines or disqualification in this case.
