On February 25, 2026, the eve of a closely watched by-election in Greater Manchester, a High Court judge ruled that Matt Goodwin, Reform UK’s candidate for Gorton and Denton, and his election agent Adam Rawlinson, would not face sanctions for breaching election rules. The breach involved the distribution of approximately 81,000 campaign leaflets that failed to include a legally required imprint—information which, under the Representation of the People Act 1983, must identify the promoter and printer of election materials.
The missing imprint came to light after the leaflets, which appeared as a letter from local pensioner Patricia Clegg explaining her decision to switch her vote from Labour to Reform UK, landed on doorsteps across the constituency. The omission raised eyebrows and questions about compliance with strict UK election laws, which are designed to ensure transparency in campaign literature. According to BBC News, the law is clear: such an omission is classed as an "illegal practice" and can result in penalties including a £5,000 fine and a three-year disqualification from elective office.
But in a detailed judgment, Mr Justice Butcher found that the breach had not arisen from any intent to deceive or cut corners. Instead, the judge was "satisfied that the relevant act or omission arose from inadvertence or some other reasonable cause of a like nature, and did not arise from a want of good faith." He explained, "The evidence satisfies me that during production, an error occurred due to a change of font. I am satisfied that that was neither requested nor authorised by the claimants." (The Guardian)
How did such a significant oversight occur? The answer, it seems, lies with the printing firm contracted for the job—Hardings Print Solutions. According to Adam Richardson, barrister for Goodwin and Rawlinson, the campaign team had supplied artwork for the leaflet that included the required imprint, and the draft versions sent back and forth for approval all contained the correct legal information. "Print-ready proofs were provided by the supplier and approved by the campaign. Those proofs clearly included the legal imprint in the correct form," a Reform spokesman noted (The Independent).
However, as Richardson explained to the court, "For reasons known only to themselves, Hardings decided to put on a different font at the last minute. Had [Goodwin and Rawlinson] known that was going to take place, they would have prevented it." The font change, apparently intended to improve readability or fit, ended up truncating the imprint off the bottom of the leaflet. Richardson added, "It should not have been done, it was not requested, it is unclear why it did happen, but as a result of that, the imprint was truncated off the bottom." (BBC News)
Hardings Print Solutions, for their part, accepted full responsibility. In a statement cited by The Independent, a spokesperson for the firm said, "Reform UK did not request or authorise the removal of the imprint. The omission arose from Hardings Printers’ production process. The party supplied artwork which correctly included the legally required imprint, and a compliant proof was produced and approved."
Once the omission was discovered, the campaign acted quickly. Both the Crown Prosecution Service and the acting returning officer for the by-election were informed of the issue, and the matter was brought before the High Court. In written submissions, Richardson argued that the breach was "limited in scope, technical in nature, and had no material impact on the election." He further pointed out that the Representation of the People Act allows a judge to relieve a person from consequences of "illegal practice" if it arose from "inadvertence or from accidental miscalculation" and "did not arise from any want of good faith."
The stakes were high. Without relief from the court, Goodwin and Rawlinson faced not only the risk of a hefty fine but also the possibility of criminal prosecution, disqualification from holding elective office for three years, and—if Goodwin were elected—the potential invalidation of the by-election result. Richardson emphasized to the court, "Without relief, they face the risk of criminal prosecution, a fine, a three-year disqualification from elective office, and, if Mr Goodwin were elected, potential invalidation of the result."
Lawyers representing the acting returning officer attended the hearing but made no representations, and no other parties were present or objected. This left the judge to weigh the evidence presented by Goodwin’s team and the admissions from the printer.
The missing imprint was not a minor technicality. Election law in the UK is designed to prevent anonymous or misleading campaign materials, ensuring that voters can always trace the source of any political message. As BBC News explained, the Representation of the People Act 1983 requires every piece of election material to include the names and addresses of the promoter, printer, and the person on whose behalf it is published. The rationale is simple: transparency is a cornerstone of a fair electoral process.
Yet, as the judge’s ruling made clear, the law also recognizes that honest mistakes can happen—even in the high-stakes world of politics. Section 167 of the Act provides a safety valve, allowing the court to grant relief when a breach is shown to have resulted from "inadvertence or other reasonable cause." In this case, the judge concluded not only that the error was inadvertent but also that Goodwin and Rawlinson had "taken appropriate steps to put it right."
The by-election itself was triggered by the resignation of former Labour MP Andrew Gwynne, who stood down on health grounds. The contest in Gorton and Denton has drawn national attention, with Reform UK attempting to make inroads in a seat Labour previously held with more than 50 percent of the vote in the general election. Goodwin, a political scientist and media commentator, is a high-profile candidate for Reform, which has been seeking to expand its presence beyond its traditional strongholds.
For many observers, the case offered a window into the sometimes-chaotic realities of electioneering. Even with multiple checks, proofs, and approvals, a last-minute production tweak by a third-party printer can introduce errors with significant legal ramifications. The episode also highlights the importance of accountability: Hardings Print Solutions’ willingness to publicly admit fault played a pivotal role in persuading the court that the breach was not the result of bad faith or deliberate wrongdoing.
In the end, the ruling clears the way for Matt Goodwin and Adam Rawlinson to continue their campaign without the shadow of legal sanctions hanging over them. As Mr Justice Butcher put it, "I’m satisfied that the omission arose from inadvertence, or some other reasonable cause of a like nature, and did not arise for want of good faith." For Reform UK, it’s a reprieve—one that underscores both the strictness and the flexibility of Britain’s electoral laws, and the perils and pitfalls that can await even the most careful campaigners.
With the by-election now proceeding as scheduled, all eyes are on Gorton and Denton to see whether this brush with legal trouble will have any impact on voters’ decisions—or if, in the end, it’s just another bump in the unpredictable road of British politics.