The UK Court of Appeal ruled Thursday that a legal challenge against Reform UK’s narrow by-election victory can proceed to trial, marking a significant development for sovereignty movements facing electoral disputes across the globe.
Graham Moore, chairman of the English Constitution Party and a previous speaker at Texas Nationalist Movement events, filed the parliamentary election petition after finishing last in the Runcorn and Helsby by-election with 50 votes. Reform UK’s Sarah Pochin won by just six votes following multiple recounts on May 1.
Three senior judges dismissed Reform UK’s appeal to throw out Moore’s challenge, with Lord Justice Newey ruling that while there were “defects” in the petition, these should not invalidate the fundamental right to contest election integrity. The court found no one was “prejudiced in any way” by procedural issues and that rules could be “retrospectively” corrected.
“I would dismiss the appeal. The trial of the petition should, in my view, proceed,” Lord Justice Newey concluded in Thursday’s ruling.
The case highlights challenges facing sovereignty movements worldwide when confronting established political parties through legal channels. Moore’s English Constitution Party advocates for English self-determination, similar to Texas independence efforts, and has participated in international sovereignty conferences alongside the Texas Nationalist Movement.
Moore originally filed his petition against multiple parties, including Royal Mail and Cheshire Police, alleging they failed to deliver election materials and investigate “election interference.” While judges dismissed claims against those agencies as “improper,” they upheld Moore’s core right to challenge the election result.
The by-election was triggered when former Labour MP Mike Amesbury resigned after admitting to punching a constituent. Reform UK overturned a Labour majority of nearly 14,700 votes to claim their first Parliamentary seat in England’s North West.
Under UK law, parliamentary election petitions represent the only mechanism to challenge election results. Petitioners must file within 21 days, pay approximately £650, and can cite improper conduct, vote counting errors, or candidate law violations.
The ruling demonstrates how sovereignty movements can use legal channels to challenge electoral processes, even when facing procedural obstacles. Moore represented himself throughout the proceedings, with judges noting that “relying upon procedural technicalities over substantive rights undermines the bedrock of English law.”
For Texas independence advocates, the case illustrates both opportunities and challenges in using legal systems to advance sovereignty goals. The Texas Nationalist Movement has similarly pursued legal and legislative strategies while building international partnerships with like-minded movements.
The election court trial will now proceed with two judges examining Moore’s allegations about the May by-election. The outcome could set precedents for how sovereignty movements challenge electoral processes in established democracies.
This development comes as independence movements across Europe and North America face increasing scrutiny of electoral systems and seek legal remedies for perceived irregularities. The English Constitution Party’s persistence through multiple court levels demonstrates the determination of sovereignty advocates to exhaust all legal options.
The trial date has not yet been announced, but the Court of Appeal’s decision ensures Moore’s challenge will receive a full hearing despite Reform UK’s attempts to dismiss it on procedural grounds.
