Previous 1 / 4 Next

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI MANA NUI SC 65/2017 [2019] NZSC 18 BETWEEN ATTORNEY-GENERAL Appellant AND ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR First Respondent HINEMANU NGARONOA, SANDRA WILDE, KIRSTY OLIVIA FENSOM AND CLAIRE THRUPP Second to Fifth Respondents Hearing: 6 and 7 March 2018 Court: Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ Counsel: U R Jagose QC, D J Perkins and G M Taylor for the Appellant First Respondent in person R K Francois for the Second to Fifth Respondents A S Butler, C J Curran and J S Hancock for the Human Rights Commission as Intervener Judgment: 27 February 2019 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A The appellant must pay to the first respondent usual disbursements. B The appellant must pay the second to fifth respondents costs of $15,000 or such lesser figure as evidenced by invoices produced to the Registrar. C Any issues arising as to costs in the Court of Appeal in respect of Mr Taylor are to be dealt with in that Court. ___________________________________________________________________ ATTORNEY-GENERAL v ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR [2019] NZSC 18 [27 February 2019]

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Attorney General v. Taylor

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the 2010 Electoral Amendment Act is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act due to the provision disenfranchising prisoners

Alleged Acts: The case before the court concerns the political rights of prisoners. The prior legal framework revoked the voting right of prisoners sentenced to a term of three years of more. However, the 2010 amendment extended that prohibition to all prisoners. Five prisoners filed suit seeking a declaration that the 2010 amendment is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.

Procedural history: In 1905 of New Zealand removed the post-conviction disqualification of prisoners from voting. In 1956 a complete ban was implemented on voting while incarcerated. In 1993, the law then limited voting rights of those convicted of three year or more. The subsequent 2010 amendment then extended the prohibition to all prisoners and the Attorney General issued a statement outlining the potential inconsistencies with the Bill of Rights. The lower court determined that it was within the court’s purview to declare an inconsistency between the Bill of Rights and the Electoral Act. The appellate court affirmed that finding, but found that one prisoner lacked standing because he could not vote under either legislative scheme as he was severing over a three year sentence.

Summary: The court stated that the judicial system is essential in determining and remedying breaches in the Bill of Rights. Accordingly, the court has the ability to review the legislative branch’s actions even through the legislative branch is primarily responsible for law-making. Despite the fear that this created a powerful judiciary, the court stated that the intervention was crucial to avoid human rights violation through legislative action. Thus, the courts could both interpret and enforce the political rights of prisoners to vote.

Conclusion: The court determined that the 2010 Electoral Amendment Act was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act.

Legal Issue(s)

Judicial Independence
Voter Registration

Applicable Law(s): Section 12 of the 2010 Electoral Act Amendments; Bill of Rights Act; IICPR art. 2(3)(a)

Region: Asia-Pacific

Country: New Zealand

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: Review of law

Date of decision: Nov 9, 2019

Geolocation

Latitude: -41.26391761

Longitude: 174.7749899

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Attorney General v. Taylor.pdf
english
Download View
Attorney General v. Taylor 2019.pdf
english
Download View