Questions Raised About Successful West Surrey Candidate’s Eligibility

Published on: 27 May, 2026
Updated on: 27 May, 2026

By Martin Giles

Questions have been raised about the eligibility of a Liberal Democrat councillor who successfully stood in Guildford in the recent West Surrey Shadow Council elections.

The candidate in question, Joanne Shaw, was elected to the new shadow authority as a member representing Guildford East. She has not responded to questions posed by The Guildford Dragon NEWS.

Now the leader of the opposition says she “will be seeking urgent clarity on the position”.

Cllr Shaw is an employee of Surrey County Council, as listed in her register of interests at GBC and, it is believed, at the new West Surrey Council. A month before the election, Fiona Davidson, a former R4GV county councillor, asked questions of SCC about Ms Shaw’s eligibility as a candidate.

Vicky Hibbert, assistant director for Governance and Democratic Services at SCC, wrote to Ms Davidson on April 8 saying: “Based on the views gathered [including, it was implied, the Electoral Commission], it appears likely that a Surrey County Council employee would be ineligible to stand.

“Even though the new Council is a separate entity from Surrey during the Shadow year, it would still be involved in decisions related to the conclusion of Surrey, which would disqualify a Surrey employee from being elected as a councillor.

“However, we would advise all potential candidates to take independent legal advice in this situation.”

The Dragon understands others also asked questions about the Lib Dem candidate’s eligibility prior to the election. Ms Davidson was led to believe that the only way a challenge could be made was for the matter to be reported to the police or for a petition to be raised once the election had been held.

Alerted to the issue, The Dragon wrote to Ms Shaw, before and after the election, asking if she had taken legal advice about her eligibility, and whether she had resigned from Surrey County Council, but no reply has been received.

We also wrote to Vicky Hibbert via SCC Comms, asking whether Ms Shaw had sought advice from SCC, as her employer, and confirm who could now challenge her eligibility and how they would go about it.

It took five days to be told by a SCC spokesperson: “Apologies for the delay with this…it took a little while to hear back from Democratic Services on this one. But they have now advised that it would not be for us to comment on this, as candidates are advised to seek their own legal advice on eligibility to stand for election.”

Fiona Davidson subsequently asked the Electoral Commission if they would investigate but they said the responsibility for checking eligibility lies solely with the candidate.

It seems that neither SCC nor GBC, who administered the elections in Guildford, are admitting any responsibility either and the only remedy suggested by the Electoral Commission is for the matter to be reported to the police for investigation or for a petition to be raised.

Yesterday (May 26) the leader of the new council and leader of its Lib Dem group, Cllr Paul Follows, said Shaw contacted the relevant bodies at GBC and SCC before standing for election and there was “no issue raised”.

He said: “Jo is clearly not an employee of the shadow authority, which is the determining factor in this matter.”

Today, the Dragon asked Surrey County Council if we could see copies of correspondence relating to Ms Shaw’s eligibility to ascertain exactly what was asked by Shaw and what advice was given by the county council.

Surrey County Council ignored the request, repeating only that “this isn’t for us to comment on/add to, as candidates are advised to seek their own legal advice on eligibility to stand for election.”

No response to a similar enquiry was received from GBC by the 5pm deadline.

Political group leaders at WSSC were all asked if they thought a SCC employee should be eligible to be a West Surrey Shadow Councillor and whether they considered the current allocation of responsibilities for checking eligibility of candidates is sufficient and appropriate.

Cllr Jane Austin, leader of the opposition at WSSC, said she is not satisfied. She wrote: “As an opposition councillor, I am not comfortable with the principle of a serving Surrey County Council officer simultaneously serving as a Liberal Democrat councillor on the West Surrey Shadow Authority, and I will be seeking urgent clarity on the position.

“It is difficult to see how a serving SCC officer also acting as a councillor within the shadow authority would not raise legitimate questions around potential conflicts of interest during a sensitive period of local government reorganisation.

“I do not know what legal advice Cllr Shaw may have received before standing, but if concerns have now been formally raised, the matter may proceed through the relevant legal processes.

“More broadly, the public must be able to have confidence in the integrity of their councillors and the impartiality of officers – and this case appears to demonstrate that the present rules and safeguards are deficient.”

Carl Mann, the deputy leader of the Reform UK group, said: “We believe Surrey County Council employees should not be eligible to serve as West Surrey Shadow Councillors.

“Even though non‑restricted staff are not legally barred, the risk of conflicts, bias, and confusion over roles, plus the need for full impartiality, means eligibility should be refused across all posts. It is also worth noting that the new councillor has not responded to numerous requests for clarity on this matter. I hope this level of engagement and transparency will be improved upon in future.

Catherine Powell, leader of the Independent councillors group, said: “I am aware of the concerns previously raised by Fiona Davidson regarding Ms Shaw’s employment by Surrey County Council and whether this meant that she was ineligible to stand as a candidate for the West Surrey Shadow Unitary Authority.

“I am also aware that the Democratic Services team have advised that candidates are responsibility for determining their eligibility. This is consistent with the Electoral Commission’s website, which states:

‘You must be sure that you are not disqualified as you will be asked to sign one of the required nomination papers to confirm that you are not disqualified. 

‘It is a criminal offence to make a false statement on your nomination papers as to your qualification for being elected, so if you are in any doubt you should contact your employer, consult the legislation or, if necessary, take your own independent legal advice.

‘The Returning Officer will not be able to confirm whether or not you are disqualified.’

“I am concerned that the process does not include independent verification of any candidate’s eligibility to stand.  The nomination papers are simply signed off by the candidate and the election agent for their party.

“To me the Electoral Commission is clear that being a paid employee of a Council disqualifies from someone being a candidate for election or being a Councillor – (see: Working for the local authority | Electoral Commission).”

Other than reporting such an issue to the police, the only other remedy, according to published advice by the Electoral Commission,  is to raise an “election petition”, but this has to be done within 21 calendar days of the election, ie tomorrow, May 28.

Any such petition would need to be presented by four or more persons who either voted at, or who had the right to vote at, the election. One of the permitted grounds for a petition is: “the person whose election is questioned was disqualified at the time of the election”.

In London, The Standard, has reported that two elected Green Party candidates have had to stand down because they are teachers employed by the council. They did not realise their employment made them ineligible. The resulting by-elections will, it is believed, cost between £20,000 and £25,000 each to run.

Share This Post