Norman Scarth is a British World War II veteran, political candidate, former farmer, and blogger. He has unsuccessfully stood for Parliament three times, and has been at the centre of controversy in several legal cases.
Scarth has been a candidate three times in UK parliamentary elections – in 1997 in Chesterfield ; in 2007 in Sedgefield ; and in 2008 in Haltemprice and Howden. In Sedgefield, police were called to move him when he campaigned outside a supermarket. In Haltemprice and Howden he came joint last with 8 votes. He stood on an anti-crime platform and argued that "modern surveillance methods were as bad as the Nazis'". Scarth has also stood for his own Anti-Crime Party in local elections in Bradford, first standing in Bingley in 2007. He was arrested for shouting through a loudhailer outside a polling station in 2008, and challenged the election result, in which he received 66 votes, with the election commissioner. A judged ruled that his case was "wholly misconceived".
Legal matters
In 1990, Scarth argued that he was not wearing a seat belt because he was about to commit suicide, but his defence was not accepted by the court. Scarth was the plaintiff in the case Scarth v. United Kingdom at the European Court of Human Rights that resolved that private hearings in small claims arbitration at county courts breached Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Civil Procedure Rules introduced in 1999 avoided further breaches. He spent four years in jail and two years in a psychiatric hospital, which he says was part of a conspiracy against him. In July 2011, Scarth, who represented himself, was sentenced to six months imprisonment for contempt of court for recording a court hearing and for "contempt for all lawyers and judges". In September an appeals court reduced the sentence to 12 weeks less one day and he was immediately released. Lord Justice Pitchford stated: "Having had the benefit of information about the background, which was not available to the judge and could not have been since Mr Scarth refused to take part, we are quite satisfied that the public interest is not served by the continued imprisonment of this 85-year-old man without in any way reflecting upon the correctness of the decision made by the judge at the time", adding, "He is an unusual individual in that the nature of his personality disorder means that he is not one of those who is likely to see the error of his ways and, to use technical language, purge his contempt."
