A Devon councillor at the centre of an election expenses row has been granted relief by a High Court judge who declared there had been “no bad faith”.

Councillor Neil Stevens accepted in his official written court submission that “mistakes had been made” but that he was “truly sorry” for this, and that he would “never make this kind of mistake again”.

In assessing his case, Mr Justice Martin Spencer sitting in Court 13 at the Royal Courts of Justice, said he “wholly accepts” Cllr Neil Stevens’ explanation that mistakes came from “errors on his part and misadvice he was given by others he trusted and relied upon”.

“Mr Neil Stevens had no experience of politics before becoming involved in this election,” Mr Justice Spencer said.

“His background is as a distinguished member of the armed forces, and it is clear that his candidacy and the obligations which accompany it, have formed a relatively steep learning curve on his part.”

The judge also granted relief to Robert Sheridan, who was the named election agent on Cllr Neil Stevens’ election expenses return, and stated that it was not necessary to grant relief to Cllr Neil Stevens’ brother, Councillor Tony Stevens (Reform UK, Exwick and St Thomas), because “in my judgment, there was no breach of the rules or legislation in his case”.

The saga over election expenses emerged in June when Councillor Ed Hill revealed he had reported the Stevens brothers and Mr Sheridan to police due to the errors on election expenses forms.

At that time, Cllr Hill, who has subsequently been expelled from Reform UK and is now an independent member of Devon County Council, said Cllr Neil Stevens had spent £1,995.72 on his election campaign when the limit for his Alphington & Cowick seat was £1,827.04. Official documents seen by the Local Democracy Reporting Service confirmed this.

But key pillars of the High Court case centred on the claim that the Stevens’ brothers had been told – with information supported by the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT – donations were not included in their spending total, even though they are, and that they now understood some items that had been included in their election expenses returns did not need to be there.

Mr Justice Spencer outlined that while Cllr Neil Stevens should have included an extra £125 on his election expenses return for a podcast recording he took part in, the entire expense of which had been put on his brother’s return, there were £351.50 of expenses that did not need to be on the form and so brought him below his limit.

“That brings us down to £1,769.22 and the limit [for Cllr Neil Stevens] is £1,827.04,” Mr Justice Spencer said.

The judge added that he accepted that the £351.50 of costs, including for leaflets that were both paid for and distributed prior to the Stevens brothers becoming official candidates, should not be included in the return.

Mr Justice Spencer noted that both Cllr Neil Stevens and Mr Sheridan had “relied to an extent” on the information they say they were given by Cllr Hill, namely that donations could be deducted from the amount a candidate had spent.

“Mr Sheridan was completely new to election campaigning and spending rules, so had no firm basis to rebut this,” Mr Justice Spencer said, reading from Mr Sheridan’s affidavit.

In Cllr Neil Stevens’ written affidavit, he claimed that Cllr Hill had “underlined that in addition to his own experience and understanding of the rules, he had also checked his work using artificial intelligence, namely the widely used system, ChatGPT, with the result that this had confirmed his understanding of the rules”.

“He urged me to check his work by using ChatGPT, which I duly did, which confirmed what Mr Hill was saying,” the affidavit from Cllr Neil Stevens adds.

“Given his experience, legal training and position as chairman [of the Exeter branch of Reform UK], which I assumed must mean he had access to further advice and materials from Reform UK, I trusted his explanation, which seemed to make sense, as it inferred that candidates had an incentive to get supporters to contribute, and the more support a candidate received, the less the candidate would have to spend themselves.”

Mr Justice Spencer added that case law, namely Finch v Richardson [2008], showed that once an error of this nature had been deemed inadvertent, there was no merit in trying to characterise the degree or lack of care, unless the person accused of such behaviour was an extremely practised professional.

“But in this case I don’t find a high degree of carelessness or negligence, but only a small degree of carelessness and negligence, and the character of Mr Neil Stevens is such that it would take very clear evidence for this court to come anywhere near a finding of bad faith on his part,” Mr Justice Spencer said.

“There has been no bad faith on his part, and it is clear to me from the evidence and from the way matters emerged back at the end of May and the beginning of June.”

Earlier in the hearing, the judge did state that a “matter concerning” him was that he had seen “no evidence that in advance of the campaign, they took steps to inform themselves of the limits on expenses and then conduct themselves in a way, maybe using documents or a spreadsheet, to monitor how much was being spent”.

“While I appreciate that to a certain extent the candidates and Mr Sheridan, were somewhat ingenue, inexperienced, without particular knowledge, and of course, I don’t complain about that as it is part of democracy that citizens should put themselves forward for public office…, they seem to have done little or nothing to acquaint themselves with their legal obligations as candidates,” Mr Justice Spencer said.

Francis Hoare, the barrister from Field Court chambers representing the three individuals, said in response that they had “relied on the person who declared himself their agent and expressed himself as having experience” – meaning Cllr Hill.

Cllr Hill had been the election agent for both of the Stevens brothers, even though the pair claim they believed that responsibility had always lain with Mr Sheridan, who ultimately did officially become their agent and signed both returns..

Mr Hoare added that steps were taken by each of the claimants to grasp the issue and that the fact they had retained invoices showed they were aware of a need to account for their expenditure, but apologised this had not been more clearly expressed in their written affidavits.

Mr Justice Spencer granted relief to Cllr Neil Stevens and Mr Sheridan, but stated he did not believe Cllr Tony Stevens had breached any rules or laws, meaning it was “therefore unnecessary” to grant relief.

The three and a small number of supporters clapped in celebration once the judge had left the room.

The trio launched their application for relief under the Representation of the People Act, which includes Section 86(2) that allows election candidates or election agents to be excused from “any error or false statement” in returns or declarations linked to election expenses at the discretion of a judge.

Speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, Cllr Hill, who did not attend the hearing, said he “did not give them any bad advice about election expenses” and had provided Electoral Commission guidance “on several occasions”.

“They [Cllr Neil Stevens and Mr Sheridan] only have themselves to blame for submitting a return that recorded an overspend and I had a duty to report that overspend,” he said.

“At the time I was advised to report the matter to the police, I still held legal responsibility as the agent. I therefore had a statutory duty to act.

“Failing to do so could have left me personally liable for aiding or concealing an offence. My actions were based purely on that legal obligation, not on any personal disagreement.”