voters were unable to vote. (2) If the election was so conducted that it was substantially in accordance with the law as to elections, it is not vitiated by a breach of the rules or a mistake at the polls - provided that it did not affect the result of the election. That is shown by the Islington case where 14 ballot papers were issued after 8.00 p.m. (3) But, even though the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the law as to elections, nevertheless if there was a breach of the rules or mistake at the polls - and it did affect the result- then the election is vitiated. That is shown by Gunn v. Sharpe where the mistake in not stamping 102 ballot papers did affect the result" In Keith Webster v. Derrick Smith and Veril Brown (1984) 21 1.L.R 388, Smith C.J. relied on and followed the decision in Woodward v. Sarsons. I feel obliged to adopt the approach of Smith C.J. The decision of the English Court of Appeal is merely persuasive, it does not bind a judge of the Supreme Court of Jamaica. (--1 ' It must also be noted that Webster's case was concerned with an election V petition and must be understood in that context In the voiding of an election under Act 29/1997 section 37(e) stipdaks that a poll may be voided if - "there is an upsurge in violence or any irregularity during election day in one or more polling stations or polling divisions or in any electoral division or constituency which would lead to a substantial distortion or subversion of the process of free and fair election." (Emphasis mine) Mr. Robinson for the applicant submitted that the underlined portion of 1 the statute, above,