[83] The history of the litigation in the Courts below is set out at [13]–[19] of the reasons of Ellen France J and need not be repeated. A declaration of inconsistency was made in the High Court and upheld on the Attorney-General’s appeal to the Court of Appeal. Heath J considered that Mr Taylor was in a different position than the other applicants but did not exclude him from the relief granted because no challenge had been made to his standing.97 The Court of Appeal considered this approach was wrong and that “[t]he Crown ought to have been attentive to the wider implications of standing”. Because it considered that the point was, for Mr Taylor, “academic” it declined him standing: “His rights are not sufficiently engaged to warrant an incompatibility analysis, let alone to justify extending a formal invitation to Parliament to reconsider the 2010 Act at his behest.”98 [84] The principal area of dispute in the Courts below was about availability of the remedy of declaration of inconsistency. The Attorney-General did not seek to justify the blanket disqualification of prisoners introduced in 2010. As recorded by Heath J in the High Court, counsel for the Attorney-General advised the Court that he did not resile from the view in the s 7 report that “the present s 80(1)(d) appeared to be inconsistent with s 12 of the Bill of Rights, and could not be justified under s 5”.99 No such concession was made in relation to the disqualification of prisoners already serving sentences of three years or more under the pre-existing legislation continued in effect by s 6 of the 2010 Amendment Act.100 The compatibility with s 12(a) of the disqualification on the basis of three years’ imprisonment previously in effect and maintained in relation to prisoners like Mr Taylor is not in issue on the appeal. [85] The questions on which leave was granted for appeal to the Supreme Court were whether the Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of inconsistency and whether Mr Taylor has standing in the appeal.101 97 98 99 100 101 Taylor (HC) at [3]. Taylor (CA) at [177]. Taylor (HC) at [32]. Continued disqualification of prisoners already serving sentences of three years or more is provided for in s 6(a) of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010. It is unnecessary to decide whether without that provision existing disqualification would be a matter of “status” preserved by s 17 of the Interpretation Act 1999, as was suggested in argument. Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZSC 131.