Troubling Evidence Of Corruption
The attacks continue as Restore Britain's popularity is causing panic at Reform
Restore Britain leader Rupert Lowe has lost a High Court bid to temporarily block a parliamentary harassment investigation into his conduct.
Mr Justice Chamberlain rejected Lowe's application for interim relief on Monday, ruling that the risk of harm to the Great Yarmouth MP was "overstated" and that it "seems very unlikely" the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme would publish any findings before a full hearing next month.
The ICGS — Parliament's own complaints body — opened an investigation following a complaint made by a third party in
July 2025. The case involves two women from Lowe's parliamentary team. A separate report commissioned by Reform UK and conducted by a King's Counsel previously found what it described as "credible evidence" of "unlawful harassment."
Lowe's legal team sought to pause the ICGS process ahead of a wider hearing on whether the courts even have jurisdiction over parliamentary complaints — a question that turns on the centuries-old principle of Parliamentary Privilege.
His barrister, Christopher Newman, alleged "procedural unfairness" in the ICGS process and pointed to what he called "troubling evidence of corruption of process," arguing there was a "powerful inference" that the complainant had leaked information to Reform UK.
Sarah Hannett KC, acting for the ICGS, pushed back firmly. She argued that Lowe was "answerable to the House" and that it was not "the constitutional role of the court to supervise or interfere" with Parliament's own complaints mechanisms.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Chamberlain acknowledged the political significance of the case. He noted that "this public interest in the continued operation of the complaints process would be a weighty one in any case, and would be especially so if the claimant is, as Mr Newman says, becoming a major political force."
The next hearing is scheduled for 17 March, where the court will consider the central jurisdictional question: whether Parliamentary Privilege shields the ICGS process from judicial review entirely.
Lowe has denied any wrongdoing and it doesn't take a genius to figure out why he is under attack.