of inconsistency “could be seen by some to be gratuitously criticising Parliament by intruding an advisory opinion”, Cooke P also suggested that, “possibly that price ought to be paid”.75 [57] As to other implications, the Court of Appeal did not attach any weight to the implications in terms of costs. That was because an indication of inconsistency in the reasoning (as in Hansen) could be relevant to the discretion to award costs.76 We, similarly, do not see the costs implications as significant. [58] Finally, the Crown’s argument relied on the fact there was no dispute that the 2010 Amendment was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights (and was not a justified limit on the right to vote). But that is not always going to be the position. Other cases may not be so clear cut. In those cases the making of a declaration can have some effect in the sense of clarifying a disputed point of interpretation. Further, where a formal declaration has been made, that may provide some protection against any attempt to re-litigate the question of consistency with the Bill of Rights. Arguably, the greater formality means a declaration is more effective than an indication of inconsistency in this sense. In any event, matters such as the utility of relief may be relevant to the discretion to grant relief. [59] The Attorney-General relies also in this context on Momcilovic v R77 and on A v Secretary of State for the Home Department.78 Momcilovic involved a set of facts analogous to Hansen79 in that it related to the application of a reverse onus in a drug case. A v Secretary of State dealt with the validity of a declaration the Special Immigration Appeals Commission had granted. The declaration was to the effect that legislation declaring a state of public emergency was inconsistent with anti-discrimination provisions in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.80 75 76 77 78 79 80 Temese v Police (1992) 9 CRNZ 425 (CA) at 427. Taylor (CA), above n 4, at [161]. Momcilovic v R [2011] HCA 34, (2011) 245 CLR 1. A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, [2005] 2 AC 68. Above n 30. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ETS 5 (opened for signature 4 November 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953), arts 14 and 15. This Convention is included in sch 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK).