6. In all of the circumstances of the cases, the elections should not be declared invalid in any of the contested constituencies on the ground of substantial non-compliance with electoral law, whether or not breaches affected the results. The circumstances do not show that the breaches that occured in the conduct of the election were substantial in the sense that a reasonable person would think that the election in each contested constituency was a sham or travesty, particularly given the high percentage of the electorate that voted in each contested constituency. 7. The trial judge erred when she invalidated the election of Mrs. QuinnLeandro, Mr. Maginley and Mr. Spencer on the ground that she was unable to say that the results in the St. George, St. John’s Rural North and St. John’s Rural West constituencies were definitely affected by the breach, and, accordingly, that she could not find that the result was not affected by the breach. Although the judge correctly applied the principle stated in Morgan v Simpson, which was followed in Considine v Didrichsen [2004] EWHC 2711 (QB) and applied in Halstead v Simon, the judge erred when she dismissed the statistical evidence adduced during the trial on the ground that she found them very unhelpful, without attempting to assess them. Since an election is for the purpose of determining the will of the registered electors, a court must attempt to determine that will, as far as it is possible, on an election challenge. On an assessment of the statistical evidence it is highly improbable that the late opening of the polls affected the results in the St. George and St. John’s West constituencies. It was improbable that the late opening of the polls affected the result in the St. John’s Rural North constituency. The trial judge should not therefore have found that the results in those constituencies were affected by the breach in electoral law and, thereupon, declaring the election of the appellants invalid. Dicta by Jack J and Newman J in Considine v Didrichsen, supra, explained; Morgan v Simpson, supra; Halstead v Simon; Edgell v Glover, supra; Marshall v Gibson Divisional Court, 14th December 1995 considered; Fitzpatrick v Hodge (1995) S.L.T. (Sh Ct) 118; Miller v Dobson (1995) S.L.T. (Sh Ct) 114, referred to. JUDGMENT [1] RAWLINS, C.J.: These appeal proceedings involve 3 consolidated appeals from a judgment delivered by Blenman J on 31st March 2010. In the judgment, the learned judge granted 3 election petitions in which Dean Jonas challenged the 7