A CAMPAIGNER has vowed to continue to fight for changes to local election voting ID laws, after losing his case in the Supreme Court.

Neil Coughlan, 69, from Witham, has been working to challenge plans to force people to have photo identification when voting in local elections.

A pilot scheme was rolled out in ten local authority areas – including the Braintree district – in May 2019.

Mr Coughlan does not have photographic ID, and when he challenged the pilot schemes, he said he believed many of his neighbours did not have the necessary documents either.

He has concerns that vulnerable and poorer members of his community, who are already less likely to vote, will struggle to provide ID, and are likely to be deterred or prevented from having their voices heard.

After the bid was dismissed by the High Court in March 2019 and by the Court of Appeal in 2020, Mr Coughlan took his case to the highest court in the land, earlier this year.

However, in a ruling last Wednesday, five senior judges dismissed his challenge brought against the Cabinet Office.

Mr Coughlan’s lawyers argued that legislation covering “how voting at the elections is to take place” did not include voter ID requirements or a person’s eligibility to vote, with the pilots outside of the Cabinet Office’s legal powers.

READ MORE >> New chairman 'making history' as first publicly autistic council chairman in UK

But, in the judgment, Lord Stephens, sitting with Lord Reed, Lord Sales, Lord Hamblen and Dame Siobhan Keegan, found the legislation at the centre of the case did cover “procedures for demonstrating an entitlement to vote”.

They found that the law included a section allowing pilot schemes “to enable the gathering of information to assist in the modernisation of electoral procedures in the public interest”.

“The 10 pilot orders were made to promote that object and accordingly were authorised for a lawful purpose,” Lord Stephens concluded.

On the dismissal, a disappointed Mr Coughlan said: “I am very disappointed by the outcome, but the fact that the Supreme Court decided to hear the case reflects the importance of the issues.

“I remain determined to fight and campaign against any future moves to make it a legal requirement to present ID at the polling station, as I am convinced the change will prevent and deter people from voting and presents a threat to our democracy.”