Accusations that the Mayor of Hamilton was involved in election interference were yesterday dropped in court by his political opponent Sonia Grant.

Sutherland Madeiros was named as a respondent in a legal petition filed by Deputy Mayor Miss Grant claiming that his win in the October 26 Corporation of Hamilton mayoral election was not valid.

Her bid to have the result overturned led two aldermen and four councillors on the corporation to call for Mr. Madeiros’ resignation, alleging that the rules for the election were changed at his instigation, giving him an unfair advantage over Miss Grant.

But yesterday, Miss Grant’s British barrister Alan Newman QC, who flew in from London on Saturday after a last-minute work permit for him was granted, told Chief Justice Richard Ground that Mr. Madeiros was not now being asked to answer any case at all.

“I make it clear that we no longer seek to proceed against the mayor,” he said, adding that he had advised Miss Grant to “cut down very considerably the ambit” of her original petition.

Mr. Madeiros’ lawyer Alan Dunch asked Mr. Justice Ground to formally note that there was no case of substance being pursued against the mayor or any allegations of wrongdoing.

“The case has obviously generated considerable publicity, some of which has been quite adverse,” he said.

Mr. Justice Ground said: “I’m happy to note and record that the effect of what Mr. Newman has said is essentially to abandon all allegations against the mayor himself personally.”

The remaining respondents to the revised petition are corporation secretary Kelly Miller and returning officer John Cooper. Ms Grant claims that they wrongly interpreted the law, allowing companies, associations and partnerships to change the name of the person or nominee registered to vote on their behalf after the mayoral election date was announced on October 6.

Mr. Newman told the Supreme Court that both had “gone wrong in a number of ways” but that neither were being accused of deliberately acting corruptly or illegally or with undue influence with regard to that matter.

He added that his client was alleging undue influence and/or illegal practice on their part with regard to a separate issue about 18 ballot papers — or eight percent of the total vote — being numbered, allowing voters to be identified,

He said: “I do not say that they have deliberately set out to cause any wrongdoing at all but what they have done in relation to the numbering of the ballot papers is a very serious defect which does have the effect of chilling voters, discouraging them from voting and that, we say, comes under the definition of undue influence.

“That’s such a serious defect that it voids the election.”

He added: “We say that there are important democratic principles which far override the significance of this particular election.”

Mr. Newman said that Mr. Cooper swore in an affidavit that he recorded the numbers of the ballot papers of 18 voters who were added to the election register after the date for the contest was made public in case their right to vote was later challenged.

“This is a real threat to the secrecy and anonymity of the ballot box and strikes at what is a fundamental cornerstone of a democratic system,” said Mr. Newman.

Ms Grant, giving evidence to the court later, said that in her 13 years on the corporation it was “taken as given” that there would be no additions to the register after the election date was announced. “That was de rigueur,” she said.

She said that Ms Miller and Mr. Cooper should have told her when they decided to make the change. “The law was being turned upside down,” she added.

Mr. Dunch, cross-examining her, asked why she had not raised an objection when she found out about the new practice three days before the election.

“There was no way I was going to be challenging nominees and eliminating any possibility of securing their vote,” she said.

Mr. Madeiros beat former Miss Grant by 161 votes to 124 on election night. A friend of Jay Bluck, who died in September after four months as mayor, he pledged to achieve their shared vision for the city. He would not comment yesterday.

The case continues today.