Supporters of disgraced mayor Lutfur Rahman have declared the “landmark” decision by Scotland Yard to take no further action is a vindication of their viewpoint.

Tower Hamlets First, the party created by the former mayor, was dissolved following the High Court ruling and was recreated to form the opposition Independent Group.

Leader Cllr Oli Rahman said the move by Met Police showed that the entire court procedure was a “waste of time”.

Cllr Rahman said: “We said consistently that the claims against the former mayor would not meet the standards of a proper professional criminal investigation.

"This has now been proven beyond any doubt by the Metropolitan Police’s Special Enquiry Team’s decision – after their careful and exhaustive review of the allegations and the judgement given by a civil court.

Read more Fury as Scotland Yard closes book on Tower Hamlets election fraud claims

“These politically motivated and baseless accusations have been a waste of time while money and attention taken away from the public and their real needs in a London local authority where one out of two children live in poverty.”

He said that since the judgment, which found Mr Rahman guilt of misusing spiritual influence to garner votes, several commentators and clergymen had said election law was unfit for purpose.

Read more Lutfur Rahman declared bankrupt

He added: “An election commissioner, jury-less deputy judge, in a civil court casting aside the votes of 37,000 Tower Hamlets residents without a criminal investigation sets a very dangerous precedent for democracy in our country which should concern any fair minded person.

“The Independent Group will continue seek practical solutions for social and economic justice and to stand up for people of Tower Hamlets.”

Reasonable doubt

Meanwhile, Andy Erlam, one of the petitioners who successfully brought down Lutfur Rahman, has written to the Metropolitan Police Constable questioning the decision.

He has asked Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe about the level of investigation, pointing out that assessing the judgment was not the same as conducting a pro-active inquiry.

He says: “Presumably the distinction is that, normally, the police investigate –obtain evidence of their own – and then assess. What the Met appear to have done here is to reverse the process: 'assess', and use this as a pretext not to investigate.”

He adds: “I am less concerned with assurances over the Met’s response to new evidence, as to how it can justify the claim that no crime was committed on the existing evidence. The Election Court made its judgment on evidence that met the criminal standard ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.”

Follow The Wharf on Twitter @the_wharf .

Keep up to date with all our articles on Facebook .