A PUBLIC inquiry has opened into whether a Stoke-on-Trent City Council election was held according to the law.

Independent candidate Eve Maley came second in the Northwood and Birches Head ward after standing for election to Stoke-on-Trent City Council in 2008.

In October, Election Commissioner Richard Mawrey counted the ballot papers behind closed doors and ruled a public hearing would have to take place in Stoke-on-Trent. The two-day inquiry began at Hanley Town Hall yesterday.

Ms Maley, of Eaton Street, Northwood, lost out to Liberal Democrat candidate Dave Sutton after several recounts – by just one vote.

Since then, she has spent £7,000 in an 18-month battle to fight the decision, which has taken her to the High Court in London on several occasions.

It has previously been discovered that 742 postal vote envelopes were counted before election night, of which 26 were rejected, leaving 716. But only 715 were accounted for after the official count.

The one missing slip could have given Mrs Maley a tie, if it was in her favour.

Ms Maley argues Mr Sutton was "not duly elected" and the election result should be declared a nullity. But her election petition is being contested by Stoke-on-Trent City Council's returning officer and head of legal services Paul Hackney.

If Mr Mawrey finds Mr Hackney made mistakes which affected the result, he can order the election be held again.

Speaking at yesterday's hearing, Mr Mawrey said he had counted 715 votes.

He said: "We know there is a discrepancy of one. It may be a missing vote. It may be one of a dozen things. It is clearly in breach of the rules."

He also said there were "certain discrepancies" in the way votes had been documented. On one paper, information had been written then altered.

He said: "The evidence in these documents is consistent with postal votes going astray."

John Hammersley, principal election officer for Stoke-on-Trent City Council, defended the changes to the vote records on the grounds it was a "fluid document" with several people inputting information.

He said election counts were conducted in locked rooms which were visually inspected at the end of the each counting and said it would have been obvious if a vote had fallen on the floor.

The hearing also heard that a machine which verified postal vote ballot papers only had a record of 712.

Philip Coppel, acting on behalf of Ms Maley, suggested this was because no votes had been verified in the last counting session. He said: "The ones received during the last session were received, but did not go through the verification process but were nevertheless pushed into the count."

Mr Hammersley blamed the errors on the machine not scanning papers properly or duplication.

Timothy Straker, representing Mr Hackney, suggested a family could have put two votes in one envelope.

He said: "The postal vote system is of a character that leaves something to be desired."

But Mr Mawrey rejected that argument.

He said: "If that happened, we would have more votes than envelopes. What we have here is fewer voters than envelopes."

Mr Coppel questioned Mr Hackney about the information that had been changed on voting records.

He said: "It would be inappropriate for anyone to change the figures relating to the number of covering envelopes received after the events."

He was unable to say why, when or by whom they had been made.

The inquiry continues.