Reform UK candidate who challenged bizarre election defeat using fake AI court cases hit with £19,000 bill
The Reform UK candidate who sued over his election defeat – using fake AI “hallucinated” legal authorities to support his case – lost and was handed a £19,000 court bill.
Liz Williams was defeated in dramatic scenes by Green candidate Hannah Robson in the rural Worcestershire election after being tied by 889 votes in a recount in May.
This led to the election being decided at random, with two ballot papers placed in a box and Ms Robson’s name removed, ensuring victory for the Green candidate who took his seat on the county council.
Ms Williams launched a High Court petition challenging the result, citing a bizarre ‘name out of a hat’ style random draw as well as allegations of irregularities at polling stations.
But his case was dismissed last week because it was filed too late, and a senior judge said the case was supported by legal authority no lawyer had ever heard of.
His Honor Judge Martin Spencer said there was no record of the officials mentioned by Ms Williams, one of whom was alleged to date from before the First World War.
“It appears that this is an invention of artificial intelligence, it may actually be a hallucination,” he said.
He also ordered him to pay £19,000 in legal costs; The decision left Ms Williams feeling “oppressed and silenced”, she said, and it would “ruin my life”.
The court heard Ms Williams and Ms Robson were rival candidates for Worcestershire County Council’s Littletons ward, which consists of three small villages, in May.
According to Ms Williams’s petition, rivals were tied by 889 votes in various counts held at the Pershore Entertainment Centre, leaving traditional party candidates behind.
“The declared result was determined simply by folding and placing two used election ballots into a ballot box and the returning officer removing one of them,” he says.
“The petitioner believes that this process was not conducted in accordance with due process, was open to fraud and corruption, and did not allow time to obtain independent legal advice when pressured to accept the process in principle.
“I felt that I could neither witness the entire process unobstructed nor that my concerns could be heard at the time.
“During all the preparations, I could not see the box and was not involved in it.
“I did not accept a third party mixing the documents. After entering the ballot box, only the returning officer should have put his hand into the ballot box.”
Ms Williams also complained about “fraud”, alleging irregularities on voting day and campaigning at polling stations.
However, the case was rejected after lawyers representing the returning officers stated that the petition was submitted within the 21-day period after the election.
Ms. Williams claimed she was within the deadline and that the clock only started ticking when the winner was announced, not when the voting took place.
As part of his case, he cited two cases titled “R v Hackney ex parte Sidebotham 1912” and “The Mayor of Tower Hamlets v Electoral Commission 2015”, which were said to provide vital legal precedent in electoral disputes.
But the returning officers’ lawyer, Timothy Straker KC, said he had done extensive research for the cases and could find nothing online or on paper.
The judge said the issue was raised before the hearing with Ms Williams, who admitted there were “errors” in the documents she initially submitted.
He said legal authorities, previous court decisions that lawyers use to support their cases, appeared to be generated by artificial intelligence and that he would not criticize him.
But Williams, who rejected Ms. Williams’ petition, said that the law provides for a 21-day limit for objections after the election and that she missed this deadline.
“The petition has not been filed within the time prescribed under Section 129 (1) [of the Representation of the People Act 1983]” he said.
“The primary legislation does not give the court the power to extend the time limit for submitting a petition.
“In my opinion, the defendants’ application was successful. The petition was not filed in time and I think it should be dismissed.”
Ruling against him, he also ordered Ms Williams to pay £19,000 towards the returning officers’ lawyers’ bills.
Although very rare, it is not the first time that a council election in the UK has resulted in a contest between two candidates, with the winner chosen at random.
In Blyth in 2007, the winner in one ward was chosen by a straw draw, while in 2022 a candidate in Yorkshire proposed playing poker to determine the winner before starting to draw straws.
The Electoral Commission’s guidance to returning officers says: “If two or more candidates have the same number of votes and the addition of one vote ensures that any of these candidates is declared elected, you must decide between the candidates by lot.
“The candidate who wins the lottery will be treated as if they received an additional vote that would enable them to be declared elected.”
