Based on her interpretation of Rule 1(7), the trial judge did not err when
she held that the late opening of the polls in the 3 contested
constituencies breached Rule 1(7) of the Election Rules.
New National Party of South Africa v Government of the Republic of
South Africa. (1995) 5 BCLR 489,mentioned.
4. Notwithstanding that late voting was not properly pleaded, the trial judge
did not err, in any event, when she held that voting after 6:00pm, in the St.
George and St. John Rural West constituencies, by persons who joined
the lines before 6:00pm on the day of the elections did not breach Rule
1(7) of the Election Rules. This is because by requiring “polling” to end
at 6:00pm, Rule 1(7) does not preclude persons who are in the line at a
polling station at 6:00pm from voting after 6:00pm. The trial judge was
correct when she found that this interpretation of Rule 1(7) is in keeping
with an elector’s constitutional right to vote pursuant to section 40 of the
Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda.
Gribbin v Kirker [1873] IR 30 and The West Division of the Borough of
Islington, (1901) 5 O’M & H 120, distinguished.
Halstead v Simon, supra; Bruno and Another v The Election Appeal
Board of the Samson Cree Nation and Others, 2006 FCA 249;
Randolph Russell v Attorney General of St Vincent and the
Grenadines (1995) 50 WIR 127 and Sauve v Attorney General of
Canada [2002] 3 SCR 519, considered.
5. The trial judge did not err when she held that, notwithstanding that the late
opening of the polls in the contested constituencies breached Rule 7(1) of
the Election Rules, the breach did not result in substantial noncompliance with electoral law.
None of the election in these
constituencies was a sham or travesty, particularly given that about 80%
of the registered electors voted in each contested constituency,
notwithstanding the late opening of the polls.
Dicta in Woodward v Sarsons [1875] L.R. 10 C.P. 733; Parliamentary
Election for Fermanagh and South Tyrone [2001] NIQB 36; Kenneth
Anthony Edgell v Ivan Glover and another [2003] EWHC 2566;
Borough of Drogbeda (1874) 2 O’M & H 201 and Morgan v Simpson;
1975] QB 151, applied.
The Borough of Hackney, Gill v Reed [1874] 2 O’M & H 77 and
Halstead v Simon, supra, considered.
6