Graham Harry Moore’s parliamentary election petition challenging the
Runcorn and Helsby by-election result.

***YOU CAN CLICK ALL PICTURES AS THEY ARE LINKS WITH MORE INFORMATION***

Graham Moore filed his election petition on 15 May 2025 as per the instructions of the election petition office; it went through three major court stages — High Court (July–Sept 2025), Court of Appeal (Oct 2025), and finally the Election Court trial (Nov 2025) — ending with a judgment on 18 November 2025. 

To note - 2 representatives from the American Embassy made themselves known to the court as they were interested in this case, and asked for permission to sit in on it.

CASE LAW ARCHIVE (ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE)

CONSTITUTIONAL CONCLUSION

Under the Representation of the People Act 1983 (another unconstitutional act created by the State), the court struck out every actor except the Returning Officer and the winning candidate — including the police and Royal Mail — even though both played direct roles in making a free and fair election impossible.

Royal Mail’s failure to deliver the election leaflet deprived voters of essential information, and police interference — including refusing to investigate the Wikipedia deletion and pressuring the ECP over action days — materially affected the fairness of the campaign. Yet the RPA 1983 makes these actors legally untouchable inside a petition, so their conduct was excluded automatically.

And in Chester Crown Court at Colvin House, what was formally described as a “trial” was, in substance, nothing of the sort. A trial requires examination of ALL evidence, yet the primary evidence — the ballots — was never inspected. Instead of testing the Returning Officer’s assertions against the ballots themselves, the judges accepted unverified testimony. A proceeding that relies on hearsay while refusing to examine the underlying evidence is not a trial; it is a procedural hearing presented as one. Without looking at the ballots, the factual basis for determining lawfulness was never established, and the core question remained untried.

It is constitutionally equivalent to a murder trial in which the court refuses to conduct a post‑mortem, yet still proceeds to reach a verdict. When a court declines to do a forensic audit of the primary evidence (the ballots), any conclusion it reaches is inherently unsound.  A determination made without examining the primary evidence is not justice — it is a non‑trial masquerading as a trial.  

The Representation of the People Act 1983 reflects Fabian administrative philosophy because the British state machinery that produced it had already been shaped for decades by Fabian ideas: centralisation, bureaucracy, technocratic control, and procedural gatekeeping.

Fabianism assumes: Experts should run the system; ordinary people should not interfere.

RPA 1983:

• requires specialist legal knowledge

• makes petitions impossible for laypeople

• empowers Returning Officers and civil servants

• disempowers independent candidates and ordinary subjects

This is a direct reflection of Fabian technocracy.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The Representation of the People Act 1983 (created by the State) prevented the court from examining the conduct of the police and Royal Mail, even though their actions directly undermined the possibility of a free and fair election. Royal Mail’s failure to deliver the election leaflet and the police’s interference — including refusing to investigate election‑related misconduct — were struck out automatically because the statute has been designed to exclude external (State controlled) entities from scrutiny/justice.  The judiciary that are aware of that statute loophole have done nothing in regards to correcting this unconstitutional unlawful situation. After Graham won the appeal, the case proceeded to what should have been the full trial, but the trial judges refused to examine the ballots or any evidence before deciding whether the election count was lawful or unlawful. Also the final trial judges took it upon themselves to quote that the Royal Mail has no legal requirement to deliver post. Royal Mail has been repeatedly fined — £5.6m (2023), £10.5m (2024), £21m (2025) — for failing to deliver mail on time, and each fine was issued because Royal Mail breached its legal Universal Service Obligation (USO) to deliver letters nationwide at set standards.  Postal Services Act 2011, plus the Universal Postal Service Order (2012, amended 2013 & 2025) and the DUSP Conditions imposed by Ofcom. These documents legally bind Royal Mail to deliver letters six days a week (until the 2025 reform), at uniform prices, and to meet strict delivery targets.

The actors who made a fair election impossible were legally shielded by the State, and the evidence that could prove the election unlawful was never looked at.

The English constitution protects free and fair elections through the Bill of Rights 1689 (“elections ought to be free”), the common‑law rights of political participation, and the constitutional conventions that guarantee political communication and petitioning. Together, these form the constitutional requirement that elections must be free from interference and conducted under conditions that allow voters to make an informed and independent choice.

Under the ancient English constitutional tradition — before 1707, before party politics, before modern bureaucracy — elections were:

• open to every free English subject

• challengeable by any subject

• accessible without wealth

• governed by common‑law fairness

• not dependent on specialist legal knowledge

This comes from:

• the common law right of petitioning the Crown

• the right of free Englishmen to challenge unlawful governance

• the principle that elections must be “free and open”

• the idea that Parliament is answerable to the people, not lawyers

Independents and ordinary citizens are effectively excluded, not only by complexity, cost, and strictness, but by the looming threat of personal bankruptcy — a weaponised cost‑regime capable of destroying litigants even when they win, as Graham’s case now demonstrates.

And to question the outcome of a proceeding that never examined the evidence — the ballots — would require an application to the Supreme Court costing £5,000 simply to open the case. This financial barrier means that an ordinary citizen or independent candidate cannot realistically challenge a non‑trial masquerading as a trial. When the factual record has not been examined, and access to review is priced beyond reach, justice becomes structurally inaccessible.

Lets now look at the differences between ELECTED AND SELECTED ie constitutional elections and communist style elections.  This is proof the judiciary is captured and controlled by the 'British' State, suppressing the English laws and rights of free and fair elections, and putting in place Acts and Statutes that immediately takes away free and open aspect of elections, which goes against our English constitution.  

Under English common law, elections are governed by original jurisdiction — the ancient rights, customs, and duties that pre‑date statutory intervention. Statutory law does not control elections; it can only administer what the common law already provides. A crucial feature of common‑law originalism is that it does not recognise desuetude: rights and jurisdictions do not fade away through disuse. They remain active, binding, and enforceable unless lawfully repealed. In this sense, common law is originalist law — continuous, persistent, and not subject to erosion by administrative or Roman‑style legal doctrines.