UKIP wins donation case.
The basis of the Supreme Court\’s judegment (on a 4-3 basis) is that Parliament intended to stop foreign donations. However, what they actually did was enact that donations from those not on the elctoral roll were verboeten and subject to forfeiture.
The Supreme Court divined a difference between what Parliament meant to do and what they did do. If there\’s an impermissible donation then we assume it\’s foreign and it\’s to be forfeit. However, if it is then shown that the donation is not foreign, it\’s somebody who could be on the electoral roll but isn\’t, then full forfeiture isn\’t necessary.
The other bit that\’s interesting is that they direct that the original judgement, from Westminster Magistrate\’s Court, stands. I think I\’ve got this right that it was the Electoral Commission who appealed that and then UKIP which appealed the decision of that appeal.
I could do with some guidance from any legal eagles here, but doesn\’t the fact that we go back to the original judgement now mean that all legal costs since then have to be picked up by the Electoral Commission? As they\’re the peeps that first appealed?