No.
Whilst an Imam or Priest can theoretically offer guidance and perspectives on how Christianity or Islamic values might align with a particular political issue, such as “assisted dying”, they cannot and must not seek to influence who to vote for or which party they should vote for in any way whatsoever.
If they do so, and influence how you voted, regardless of their intention, then they commit an offence.
For this reason, most Priests and Imams stay well clear of anything political.
This is because the decision of how to cast your vote is a personal one.
In the United Kingdom, religious leaders are recognised to play an important role in their communities and to have an unusual influence on their communities.
It is OK for a Priest or Iman to say “Make sure you go out and vote” – in other words, hey can encourage civic participation.
NOTE: Anyone with significant influence may be subject to the offence, not just Priests and Imam
What is an offence:
These are all things that Imams or Priests have been caught saying and reported for. (This often results on a criminal caution):
– You should vote for the Green Party.
– It is your duty to look after the earth and therefore you should consider the Green Party.
– Only Labour have looked after Muslims and therefore you should consider voting for the Labour Party.
– This is a Christian country and only the Conservative Christian Party represent Christians locally inu this election so you should consider voting for the
Conservative Christian Party.
– Reform is an Anti-Muslim party and you should not vote for them.
– Nigel Farage is a racist and you should consider not voting for them.
– Two of the Candidates are Christians and therefore you should consider voting for them.
– One of the Candidates is a Muslim and therefore you should consider voting for them.
What is the offence?:
In the UK, the offence of “using undue influence to affect voting intentions” is a serious electoral crime known as a “corrupt practice” and can lead to prison sentences.
The definition of this offence has been modernised and expanded by the Elections Act 2022 to make it simpler for authorities to prosecute and to cover a wider range of intimidatory activities.
What Constitutes Undue Influence?
A person is guilty of undue influence if they carry out an activity for the purpose of:
– Inducing or compelling a person to vote in a particular way or to refrain from voting.
– Otherwise impeding or preventing the free exercise of a person’s right to vote.
The law also covers a person who carries out such an activity after an election on account of someone having voted or not voted in a certain way.
The activities that fall under this offence are explicitly defined and include:
– Using or threatening to use violence against a person.
– Damaging or threatening to damage a person’s property.
– Damaging or threatening to damage a person’s reputation.
– Causing or threatening to cause financial loss to a person.
– Causing spiritual injury to, or placing undue spiritual pressure on, a person.
– Any other act designed to intimidate a person.
– Any act designed to deceive a person in relation to the administration of an election.
This offence is not limited to physical actions in or around a polling station; it applies to all campaign activity, including printed materials and online communication.
Penalties
Undue influence is a “corrupt practice,” which is a serious electoral offence. The penalties for a conviction can include:
– Imprisonment or
– A fine.
Disqualification:
A person convicted of a corrupt practice, including undue influence, is disqualified for a period from being elected to the House of Commons or holding any elective office. A specific penalty, known as a “disqualification order,” was introduced by the Elections Act 2022, which can ban a person convicted of intimidatory behaviour from holding elected office for five years. This can be imposed in addition to any other criminal sentence.
Can a religious leader’s actions result in an election being declared void and could the religous leader be personally liable for all resulting costs (which would be considerable)?
“Undue influence” is an electoral offence that has a long history in UK law, with specific provisions for “spiritual injury” or “spiritual pressure.” This offence is committed when someone, directly or indirectly, inflicts or threatens to inflict “any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm or loss” to induce a person to vote or not vote, or to influence them in a particular way.
The law is designed to prevent those with religious authority from abusing their position to manipulate the democratic process. A key historical case involved Lutfur Rahman, a former mayor of Tower Hamlets, where an election court found that his supporters, including a leader of a council of mosques, had used “undue spiritual influence” to sway voters. As a result, the election was declared void.
This is a complex area, but the religious leader could be found to have committed a corrupt practice could be held personally liable for a significant portion of the costs both of the Election Petition and the costs of re-running that election.
An election petition is a legal challenge to an election result. The costs of this are a matter for the election court to decide. If a petition is successful, the losing side (which could include the candidate and/or the person found to have committed the corrupt practice) is typically ordered to pay the petitioner’s costs.
The first case was a Bishop’s letter in Ireland in the 1800s that caused an election to be declared void.
In 2014, the then-mayor of Tower Hamlets Luftur Rahman had been found guilty in April 2015 of a number of variety of corrupt and illegal practices in connection with his re-election to that office in 2014. These practices included making false statements of fact about another candidate’s personal conduct or character, electoral bribery; and (by his agents) personation, postal vote fraud, fraudulent registration of voters, and the illegal payment of canvassers. They also included undue spiritual influence, a corrupt practice of which it appears that no-one had been found guilty in the previous 120 years or so (and in respect of which there had been only nine successful election challenges, all in Ireland between 1852 and 1893).
The 2014 election was declared void; Rahman was removed from office, was ordered to pay £250 000 in interim costs and was barred from standing for elected office until 2021; he declared himself bankrupt in 2015.In the Lutfur Rahman case, the election court found that undue influence and other corrupt practices had occurred, and Mr. Rahman was personally ordered to pay a substantial sum in costs, reportedly around £250,000. He was later declared bankrupt. This demonstrates that an individual found to have committed a corrupt practice can be personally and financially exposed.
Whilst the costs of re-running an election (a by-election) are generally borne by the State, either through central government funds (for parliamentary elections) or local authority funds (for local elections); however where a religious leader has caused the election to be declared void due to a corrupt practice then not only could they be disqualified from standing for elected office for a period of time and as their actions have a significant financial impact on the public purse, they could face personal financial liability and penalties related to the election petition itself and the criminal or civil consequences of their actions and the local authority, having a duty to protect the public purse, would be required to pursue the religious leader for liability for the costs of re-running the election*.
- To date no religious leader has been sued for the cost of re-running the election.
The information provided is based on UK law, particularly the Representation of the People Act 1983 and the Elections Act 2022. The principles discussed are applicable to parliamentary and local government elections in the UK.