What Are Election Disqualification Orders And Should I Be Worried?

Election disqualification orders were introduced in the Elections Act 2022 (the Act) to protect those standing as electoral candidates from intimidation.¹ They have an important function, i.e. to preventing someone from standing as an electoral candidate if they themselves are convicted of a crime directed at an electoral candidate, campaigner, or elected official because of their electoral position.

Due to their specific function, these orders have rarely been used. This means there is sparse data regarding their usage and, crucially, very little case law guiding courts and prosecutors. Evidence given to the electoral commission puts this mostly down to ‘their limited scope […] and a lack of awareness or confidence among candidates and police about when and how to use them’². This is not in itself a problem.

However, there are worrying signals from the government and a new police operation that indicate a surge in these orders may be on the horizon. Without clear rules on their implementation and proper guidance on when they are appropriate, this little-known legal mechanism is in danger of being used inappropriately by police and prosecutors, stifling the country’s pool of electoral candidates in the process.

This blog will explore the role of Election disqualification orders in the justice system and comment on where that role may be headed in a future where the distinction between justice and politics is becoming increasingly hard to define.

What are the rules?

In short, if you commit an offence against someone in elected office because they are in elected office, you must be banned from being an electoral candidate for a period of 5 years unless exceptional circumstances exist.

s.30 of the Act says that where:

a) A person is convicted of a Schedule 9 offence,
b) The offender was aged 18 or over when the offence was committed, and
c) The court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offence is aggravated by hostility related to persons falling within any of s.32 – s.34.
the court must make an order for a period of 5 years disqualifying the offender from being either nominated for or elected to a relevant elective office (a list of which is found in s.37(1) of the Act).

Schedule 9 of the act lists a wide array of offences ranging from serious crimes, like kidnapping and hate crimes, to more minor offences carrying negligible penalties, such as breach of the peace or using words or behaviour likely to cause alarm or distress.

s.32 to s.34 list the people who will trigger an Election disqualification order if they are the victim of the offence, namely:

a) Those declared as a candidate in the next scheduled election for that office³,
b) Those declared to be returned as the holder of a relevant elected office⁴,
c) Those acting as a campaigners for a range of electoral purposes, a list of which is found in s.34(1) of the Act.

An offence is aggravated by hostility to any of the persons above if:

a) At the time of the offence, or immediately before, the offender demonstrates hostility towards the victim based on their being in any of the above categories, or
b) The offence was motivated by hostility towards people falling within any of the above categories in their capacity as such.
The only exception in s.30 of the Act is where there are particular circumstances relating to the offender or the offence(s) that would make imposing such an order unjust in all circumstances. In considering this, the Court can consider evidence which was inadmissible in the proceedings for which the offender was convicted.

Why these orders may become more relevant in the future?

The above rules paint a picture of an ancillary order available to courts in a fairly narrow set of circumstances. However, the tone from government and police is changing.

In 2024, in the wake of what was then described as attempts by protesters to “hijack the democratic process”⁵, the government announced that £31 million of additional funding would be made available to police and state bodies under a new Defending Democracy Policing Protocol (DDPP). There were 7 aims of this protocol identified and set out in the accompanying policy paper, including preventing protests at democratic venues⁶.

This rhetoric was adopted by the next administration. A July 2025 policy paper has signalled the government’s intention to widen the reach of these orders by adding electoral staff to the list of victims who would trigger a mandatory disqualification order⁷.

Fast forward to January of this year and, as part of the DDPP, the police have implemented Operation Ford, a policing initiative ‘aiming to strengthen protective security’ for those in elected office⁸. This new policing initiative signals a push to investigate, arrest, and prosecute these kinds of offences.

Last May’s local elections saw protests brought back into the public eye, with candidates from across the political spectrum being arrested, investigated and even standing for election from inside prison⁹. This phenomenon is worrying. It further distorts the line between electoral candidates legitimately expressing a political opinion and a crime being committed. In the context of Operation Ford, there may be a drive towards prosecuting political candidates and barring their candidacy in the process.

What effect do they have on candidates?

It may be that Election disqualification orders remain a rare sight in courtrooms. But given the relative youth of this legislation and an increase in political candidates being arrested, combined with a new and more aggressive approach to policing, there is concern that these orders could stifle freedom of expression, in particular for those legitimately protesting the decisions of our elected officials

Not only is this worrying for the health of our parliamentary democracy, but it provides an incentive for party candidates to exaggerate or falsify allegations, potentially catching impartial bodies like the police and CPS in the political crossfire usually associated with election campaigning.
There are a raft of scenarios where prosecutors will need to engage with low-level public order and communication offences, which commonly can be used against those demonstrating or expressing political speech online, carrying a non-custodial sentence but now with the great impact of barring a candidate from standing for election. For example, CPS prosecuting guidance for s.5 Public Order Act 1986 recommends that ‘in the majority of cases, prosecutors are likely to find that behaviour that can be described as insulting can also be described as abusive’¹⁰.

Whilst there are safeguards to ensure that prosecutions that are not in the public interest are not brought to trial and that Article 10 rights to freedom of expression are safeguarded, there is now a clear legal route for prosecutors to take action. Combine this with the recommend approach that merely ‘insulting’ words can trigger an Election disqualification order and the Police being more active in their attempts to bring these kinds of cases before the Court and the problem becomes evident.

There is no sentencing guidance from the Sentencing Council on these orders and caselaw is sparse, as is practical information about these orders on the internet. Courts and advocates may need to be prepared to deal with issues like these as they arise, issues which could have a significant effect on the careers and aspirations of those accused, and a chilling effect on the pluralism of candidate pools at local and national elections.
It is incredibly important that those who are voted into elected office are protected from intimidation, harassment, and violence, when carrying out their elected duties. However, there is a gap in the law surrounding these orders and there is a risk that the new policing focus will ask Courts and advocates to be engaging with significant issues without case law to guide them. Miscarriages of justice could arise as a result without adequate judicial oversight.

What should I do?

If you fear you are about to be or have already been made the subject of an Election disqualification order, you may want to take legal advice. Please call one of our criminal defence experts on 0330 822 3451 or request a callback to discuss the issues. We can provide estimates of our fees and guidance on what is achievable.