Where the false name on the register was that of a fictitious person, then

(a)    causing that name to be put on the register would involve a corrupt practice under s 62A;

(b)    applying for a postal vote in that name would also involve a corrupt practice under s 62A;

(c)    using that vote in an election would be personation contrary to s 60 and thus a corrupt practice.

The question was raised whether personation would be involved if the name entered in the Register was that of a real person who actually lived elsewhere. Clearly causing the name to be entered in the Register and applying for a postal vote would involve corrupt practices under s 62A but would it be personation if the vote were actually cast ?

I was told by both counsel that the question had never been decided, though both counsel agreed that it would be absurd if the practice were not personation.

In my judgment, using the name of a real person to register a name on the Register when that person is not qualified by residence (or for some other reason) to vote in that constituency or ward and then using that name to cast a vote is as much personation as using the name of a fictitious person. If the real person consents (a fortiori if he actually completes the offending documents), he is himself guilty of personation and those who induce him to commit that fraud are likewise guilty. Obviously, if the name of the real person has not been used with his knowledge or consent then that name is, to all intents and purposes, a fictitious name properly so called and thus expressly within s 60.

Thus I find that, to the extent that the names of real persons not resident in Central Ward were falsely registered at addresses in Central Ward and those names subsequently used to obtain and cast postal votes, then whether or not those persons consented to or participated in the process, the offences of personation and false information were committed.