The re-poll of last term’s overturned Union election will go ahead in 2nd week of this term, as the Appellate Board publishes its final report, upholding Krishna Omkar’s conviction and disqualification in full.
Omkar was found guilty of electoral malpractice under the Union’s complex Rule 33. The malpractice centred around the holding of a ‘slate party’ the night before last term’s Union elections, at which Omkar and a number of past and current Union figures were present, as well as Cal Flyn, Editor of the Oxford Student.
The tribunal was brought by Charlotte Fischer, another presidential candidate, who lost to Krishna by a large majority. The tribunal criticised Omkar for what they perceived as a “disturbing arrogance” towards the Union’s rules. He was also criticised for ‘intimidating’ Ms Flyn, whose testimony received significant prominence in the tribunal’s report.
Omkar appealed the decision, which disqualified him from the election and the subsequent re-poll. In a lengthy written submission to the Appellate Board, he attacked “factual inaccuracies”, “material omissions”, and reliance on “hearsay”. The tribunal board also relied on a “balanced of probabilities” for finding the verdict, rather than the “beyond all reasonable doubt” burden required by the Union rules, he argued.
However, the Appellate Board found no reason to uphold any of Omkar’s allegations of failings in the tribunal process. The Board also considered Omkar’s claim that the sentence was disproportionate. On the disqualification, the Board ruled that once guilt was found, disqualification was not a power but “a duty” of the tribunal panel.
The Appellate Board finally considered issues of eligibility to run in the re-poll. There have been ongoing suggestions that Charlotte Fischer may be the only person eligible, due to the criteria laid down by the original ruling.
The original tribunal panel were questioned over their decision to order a re-poll, as the Appellate Board viewed it as “unusual that the Original Tribunal had not simply ordered the election of the original complainant.”
They accepted the tribunal panel’s defence that their decision had been made on principle, “for the good of the Society”, and that they had not explicitly examined who would be eligible.
During the appeal proceedings, Omkar's representative protested that allowing Fischer to assume the presidency uncontested would amount to a "coronation".
As the Union Returning Officer refuses to examine eligibility of potential candidates until nominations are received, it is still unknown whether Charlotte Fischer is the only eligible candidate.
The report does suggest some differences of opinion over Omkar’s punishment, but the Appellate Board’s jurisdiction only allows it to consider the rationality of the sentencing, so found no grounds to overturn the original ruling.
In the report’s closing remarks, the Board says it was “particularly saddened to note the increasing appearance of professional advocates,” regardless of whether they were or were not acting in a pro bono capacity.
At the original tribunal hearing, Charlotte Fischer was represented by a professional lawyer, whereas Krishna Omkar was represented by a post-graduate ex-Union Returning Officer. However, at the appeal Omkar was represented by a professional lawyer, whereas Fischer represented herself.
The Board cited a statement in the Union rules that notes they exist to ensure “members do not gain advantage by virtue of being richer than other candidates,” and advised restricting or banning the use of professional advocates.
With the appeal process completed, the re-poll will be held Friday of 2nd week, with nominations opening Friday of 0th week.
