Considine v Didrichsen.8 In addition, the petitioners contended that the effect of breaches of the law as to elections which occurred due to the late opening and the late closing of the polls were so substantial that they provided grounds for invalidating the elections, in any event, regardless of whether the results were affected or not. [20] The petitioners/respondents accepted the judge’s decision that the use of ‘photo lists’ in the elections did not cause substantial non-compliance and did not affect the results of the elections, notwithstanding that it breached election law. In the premises, these issues will not be considered in this judgment. [21] It initially seemed that Mr. Martineau, SC, had resiled from his position that the trial judge erred when she held that the use of the ‘photo lists’ was a breach of election law. He later maintained that, in substance, the ‘photo lists’ contained the information which the law requires to be in the Register for Elections with ID card numbers and photographs of voters, additionally. He urged us to find, in effect, that the use of the Lists was to support the Register for Elections and was therefore well intentioned. In the event that I misapprehended Mr. Martineau’s intention, I would only briefly state that, in my view, the trial judge was correct in her decision that the use of the ‘photo lists’ breached election law, for the reasons which she gave. [22] Mr. Martineau remained concerned with other findings which the trial judge made with respect to the use of the ‘photo lists’. He insisted that the judge should not have found9 that it was inexcusable, if not a sign of incompetence, for electoral officials to try to print the ‘photo lists’ on the day before the elections. He submitted that this finding was inconsistent with her prior finding10 that the late publication of the ‘photo lists’ was the result of difficulties experienced with the [2003] EWHC 2566. [2004] EWHC 2711. 9 At paragraph 214 of the judgment. 10 At paragraph 212 of the judgment. 7 8 14