Before embarking upon the consideration of the grounds upon which it is sought to void the taking of the poll in the West Central St Andrew Constituency, let me examine the principles which ought to exercise the mind of a court in deciding whether there is any basis for declaring a poll void. Whilst the statute stipulates the grounds upon which a poll may be voided in a constituency or in a polling division, it is the Common Law which c-,:) . has enunciated the principles which appertain to the voidance of Parliamentary Elections. From as far back as the nineteenth century Brett T in Woodward v. Sarsons L1874-801 All ER Rep. 262 defined the parameters by which a court should be guided in voiding the results of an election. At page 266 the Learned Judge said: "we are of the opinion that the true statement is that an election is to be declared void by the common law applicable to parliamentary elections if it was so conducted that the tribunal, which is asked to avoid it, is satisfied, as a matter of fact, either that there was no real electing at all, or that the election was not really conducted under the subsisting election laws. The tribunal should be so satisfied, i.e. that there was no real electing by the constitution at all, if it were proved to its satisfaction that the constituency had not, in fact, had a fair and free opportunity of electing the candidate which the majority might prefer. This would certainly be so, if a majority of the electors were proved to have been prevented from recording their votes effectively, according to their own preference, by general corruption or general intimidation, or by being prevented from voting by want of machinery necessary for so voting, as by polling stations being demolished, or not opened, or by other of the means of voting according to the law not being supplied, or supplied with such errors as to render the voting by means of them void, or by fraudulent counting of votes, or by