This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-leave-campaign-lies-cps-investigation-misleading-voters-a7403036.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Brexit: Leave campaign could be investigated by CPS for misleading voters Crown prosecutors consider complaint against Brexit EU referendum campaigns
(about 20 hours later)
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is considering investigating a complaint arguing voters were misled by the Vote Leave and Leave.EU campaigns in breach of electoral law. Crown prosecutors are considering a complaint that the Leave campaign misled voters during the EU referendum campaign. 
The complaint was submitted by an independent group led by Professor Bob Watt, an expert in electoral law at the University of Buckingham, The Guardian reports. The complaint against Vote Leave and Leave.EU campaigns was submitted by academic experts in electoral law, who suggested “corrupt campaigning practices” were used by campaigners.
Mr Watt said the complaint about "undue influence" on the referendum campaign centres on allegations the leave campaigns made "assertions of fact that were knowingly misleading" - including the high-profile claim the EU was costing the UK £350 million a week. The group, led by Professor Bob Watt of the University of Buckingham, alleges that the Leave campaign made “assertions of fact that were knowingly misleading”.
He said the Vote Leave claim was contrary to evidence from the Office of National Statistics. Nearly half of Britons believed the claim in the run up to the EU referendum, an Ipsos MORI poll found. The falsehoods named include the high-profile claim that the EU was costing £350 million a week – a claim that Vote Leave continued to use despite repeated ticking offs by the UK Statistics Authority.
The professor also cited as misleading Vote Leave's claim "the UK has no border controls whilst in the EU" and posters claiming "Turkey is joining the EU". Under UK electoral law “undue influence” is considered a corrupt practice. The offence includes the use of a “fraudulent device or contrivance”.
Normally, the police have to lodge a complaint before the CPS can consider it, but under the Representation of the People Act 1983, the director of public prosecutions can consider alleged election offences which are referred directly to the CPS. “Ultimately it will be for parliament to decide, based on the court’s judgment on evidence that there was undue influence, if that has bearing on whether the EU referendum result should be considered as democratically safe,” Mr Watt told the Guardian newspaper.
"Undue influence" is considered a corrupt practice under electoral law. A Crown Prosecution Service spokesman said: “We can confirm that this letter has been received and we are currently considering its content.”
Although the case would have no influence on the EU referendum result if brought successfully, it could result in criminal charges for anyone the courts hold responsibile for making false statements.  The complaint is being considered by a special team that deals with electoral crimes. 
  Leave.EU has not yet issued a statement on the subject. Matthew Elliott, former chief executive of Vote Leave, said in response to the complaint: “We wish Bob [Watt] well.”
Leave.EU recently claimed 100,000 people will join Nigel Farage in a march against the High Court's ruling Parliament must have a say in triggering Article 50. Under the 1983 Representation of the People Act the Director of Public Prosecutions can consider electoral offences when they are directly referred to her office but not before then.
Plans of the protest emerged after Mr Farage warned of "political anger the like of which we have never seen in this country" if Britain's exit from the Eu was derailed.
Leave.EU said it planned to crowd fund £100,000 from its supporters to pay for barristers to represent the pro-Brexit argument in the court action.
If raised, Brexiteers would be able to challenge claims made by Remain and even the Government in court.