The Darren Grimes case: why Brexit activist is appealing £20,000 fine

Pro-Brexit activist Darren Grimes has launched an appeal against the Electoral Commission’s decision to fine him £20,000 over campaign spending during the EU referendum.

The 25-year-old former fashion student claims the independent body, which oversees UK elections, made “multiple errors of fact and law”.

As the case gets under way at the Mayor’s and City of London Court, here is what the two sides are arguing:

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

The commission’s argument

Last summer, the independent commission announced it had found “significant evidence” that the official Brexit campaign, Vote Leave, had failed to properly declare the extent of its coordination with another pro-Brexit group, BeLeave, set up by Grimes.

In a statement published last July, the watchdog said BeLeave had spent more than £675,000 with Canadian digital firm Aggregate IQ “under a common plan with Vote Leave” - a payment that meant the official campaign exceeded its legal spending limit of £7m by almost £500,000.

“Mr Grimes spent more than £675,000 on behalf of BeLeave, a non-registered campaigner that had a spending limit of £10,000. Further, he wrongly reported that same spending as his own,” it said.

Vote Leave was also fined £61,000, and also appealed the decision, but then dropped the case in March.

Grimes’ argument

Grimes “has raised more than £90,000 though a crowdfunding website to finance his appeal”, enlisting the services of Timothy Straker QC, says The Guardian.

On Monday, the barrister said that the commission had made a number of legal and factual errors and that the fine was “unreasonable”. He also claimed the watchdog had allowed itself to “be subject to outside influence”.

In a statement to the court, Grimes said: “This case has plagued myself and my family for the past two years. The Electoral Commission’s disproportionate and unreasonable fine even led my mother to offer to sell her ex-council house to pay the penalty – a house she worked so hard to buy.”

Straker added that the errors “serve to reveal a shocking tale of incompetence on the part of the commission with an attempt to make that incompetence rebound on Mr Grimes”.

Part of the appeal centres around whether the commission “misinterpreted the law around unincorporated associations such as BeLeave”, explains the Financial Times.

The case against Grimes also hinged on the fact that he was registered as an individual campaigner, reducing his spending limit to £10,000.

Grimes claims he filled in the registration form “in good faith” and that the commission failed to raise any concerns when it was submitted and during two preliminary investigations, says the paper.

But the commission believes his appeal is without merit, reports the FT. James Eadie QC, the barrister for the independent body, said: “The commission considered all relevant material in Mr Grimes’ case and had a sufficient and reasonable basis for reaching the conclusions it did as to liability.”

The hearing continues.