Previous 57 / 69 Next

' 1 - I 57 - I n r e l a t i o n t o t h e s e c o n d l i m b o f t h e r u l e i n Woodward v . Sarsons, i t was a l l e g e d t h a t t h e r e w a s w i d e s p r e a d i m p e r s o n a t i o n , v o t i n g by p e r s o n s n o t e n t i t l e d t o v o t e , v o t i n g w i t h o u t b e i n g sworn o r thumb p r i n t e d a n d who p r o d u c e d no p r o p e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n c a r d s , a p p e a r a n c e i n p o l l b o o k s o f p e r s o n s who h a d v o t e d i n p e r s o n s who d i d n o t i n f a c t v o t e . names o f I t was a r g u e d t h a t t h e i r r e g u l a - r i t i e s w e r e s o s e r i o u s and s u b s t a n t i a l t h a t t h e C o u r t c o u l d c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e p r o c e e d i n g s w e r e n o t i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e scheme f o r electing. ~ u r t h e rt h a t i f t h e p e t i t i o n e r c a n p r o v e t h a t d e p a r t u r e s f r o m t h e scheme a r e s u b s t a n t i a l h e n e e d n o t show t h a t t h e y h a v e a f f e c t e d t h e outcome o f t h e e l e c t i o n . The C o u r t , h o w e v e r , h e l d t h a t t h e e l e c t i o n was c o n d u c t e d under t h e provisions o f t h e S t a t u t e and t h a t t h e c a s e d i d not f a l l w i t h i n t h e s e c o n d l i m b o f t h e r u l e i n Woodward v . S a r s o n s . The . C o u r t , i n t h e ~ e i t hW e b s t e r c a s e " d o u b t e d v e r y much w h e t h e r a n e l e c t i o n p e t i t i o n brought i n r e l i a n c e on t h e second p a r t of t h e common l a w r u l e c a n e v e r s u c c e e d i n modern ~ a m a i c a . " The p e t i t i o n was d i s m i s s e d . T h e q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r , h a d t h e c a s e o f Morgan v . S i m p s o n been c i t e d t h e d e c i s i o n would have been d i f f e r e n t . Would i t h a v e f a l l e n w i t h i n t h e f i r s t p r i n c i p l e e n u n c i a t e d by Lord Denning o r n o t ? I n answering t h i s q u e s t i o n it i s s a f e t o say that.: t h e w e b s t e r c a s e w a s decided p e r incuriam. However, t h e common l a w a p p e a r s t o be, a n d I a c c e p t M r . R o b i n s o n ' s s u b m i s s i o n , t h a t a t common l a w t h e i r r e g u - l a r i t i e s h a d t o be s u b s t a n t i a l t o r e n d e r a n e l e c t i o n i n v a l i d i f a s i n woodward v . S a r s o n s ( s u p r a ) t h e i r r e g u l a r i t i e s d i d n o t a f f e c t the result. T h i s a c c o r d s w i t h common s e n s e .

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

The Representation Of The People Act v The Election Petitions Act, etal

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether there is sufficient evidence to declare the 1997 elections void?

Alleged Acts: Three members of different political parties contested the December 18, 1997 General Election results in Jamaica’s West Central St. Andrew district. Holness of J.LP. party was declared elected as a member of parliament by a margin to 153 votes. The Constituted Authority filed a Notice of motion before the Supreme Court keeping the election results be declared void. The plaintiffs allege the ballot boxes were altered, destroyed, or tampered with and that the number of cast votes exceeds the list of electors for polling divisions 49, 64, 71, and 72.

Procedural history: Holeness moved to dismiss the application alleging that he was duly elected through the majority of votes. The court rejected the motion and proceeded to the merits of the case.

Summary: The ballot box for polling division 49 was found empty at the final count. The polling officer for division 49 swore she counted the ballots and turned them over to Mantle who was unauthorized to transport the ballots. For polling division 49 there were 312 missing votes, which is more than the margin of victory. For polling division 64, the ballot total was 128, but the preliminary statement of polling found 192 ballots. This number again exceeds the margin of victory. In polling district 71, it is asserted that the ballot box retriever’s identity is unascertainable, but the court found this did not surmount of tampering without additional evidence. In polling division 72 there were a total of 346 votes cast, but during the final count the box was found empty. Thus, the court determined that the box was tampered with. The plaints also asserted that there was not sufficient evidence that the electors were bona fide. The court found this to be the case in polling division 56 because there was not official list issued which would assure that the electors were not impersonating others. Therefore, this underline the integrity of the election. In polling division 57, the Labour Party member openly voted on behalf of electors sent away, this similarly undermined the integrity of the election.

Conclusion: The court found that the election was void for polling divisions 23, 49, 56, 57, 58, 64, 71, and 72 in West Central St. Andrew.

Legal Issue(s)

Electoral Integrity
Electoral Violence and Intimidation
Vote Verification and Transmission

Region: Americas

Country: Jamaica

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: May 28, 1998

Geolocation

Latitude: 17.974020708694255

Longitude: -76.83454784008839

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

The Representation Of The People Act v The Election Petitions Act, etal.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

The Representation Of The People Act v The Election Petitions Act, etal

Primary Documents

Notifications