Barboo

This is not correct at all. £4k out of the eighteen had nothing to do with Alan Bown, being an impermissible donation from another donor altogether, and the court ruled that all of Alan Bown's donations, totalling £363,697, were impermissible because he was off the register for the whole of the period during which they were given.

Barboo

I don't see how the Electoral Commission could not appeal. By allowing UKIP to keep £349,216 of Alan Bown's money that was given before the treasurer's meeting with EC officials in June 2005, the judgement in effect shifts responsibility for establishing the permissibility of donors away from parties and onto the EC.

Suppose on some future occasion a large impermissible donation is given to a party at the beginning of December, and the treasurer later claims the donor had said he was on the register when in fact he wasn't. The EC won't even know about the donation until the 4th quarter's returns are sent to them and they won't be able to do anything about it because, according to the judgement in the UKIP case, it's only after a party has been informed by the EC that a donor is impermissible that further donations from that person become liable to forfeiture. Impermissible donations already given are safe. That's not what the PPERA lays down, and it's not fair on parties that comply with the law by checking all donations and returning those that are impermissible as they're supposed to.

It's my belief the judge made this bizarre judgement in order to push the EC into appealing. Now some other court will have the job of making a fair decision - a virtual impossibility under the law as it currently stands.