[2] It is accepted that the prohibition in the 2010 Amendment is inconsistent with the right to vote in s 12(a) of the Bill of Rights. Section 12 provides that: Every New Zealand citizen who is of or over the age of 18 years— (a) [3] has the right to vote in genuine periodic elections of members of the House of Representatives, which elections shall be by equal suffrage and by secret ballot; … The respondents, five prisoners, sought a declaration in the High Court that the 2010 Amendment was inconsistent with s 12(a).1 An application to strike out the proceeding on the ground there was no jurisdiction to make a declaration was dismissed by Brown J.2 The matter proceeded to trial after which Heath J in the High Court made a declaration that:3 Section 80(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 1993 (as amended by the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010) is inconsistent with the right to vote affirmed and guaranteed in s 12(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act. [4] The Attorney-General appealed to the Court of Appeal from this decision on the ground the Court had no jurisdiction to make the declaration. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.4 The Court did so on the basis there was a power to make a declaration and, with one qualification, considered it was not unreasonable to make a declaration in this case. The qualification was that the Court ruled that the first respondent, Mr Taylor, had no standing. That was because he was prevented from voting by the earlier legislation, not by the 2010 Amendment. [5] The Attorney-General appeals with leave to this Court.5 Mr Taylor cross-appeals on the standing issue. The Human Rights Commission was given leave to appear as an intervener. 1 2 3 4 5 Mr Taylor and others have also brought proceedings challenging the validity of the 2010 Amendment on the basis it involved an amendment to an entrenched provision of the Electoral Act 1993 without compliance with the requirement for a super-majority. This matter is the subject of an appeal to this Court: Ngaronoa v Attorney-General [2017] NZSC 183. Judgment is reserved. Taylor v Attorney-General [2014] NZHC 1630. Taylor v Attorney-General [2015] NZHC 1706, [2015] 3 NZLR 791 [Taylor (HC)] at [79]. Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215, [2017] 3 NZLR 24 (Kós P, Randerson, Wild, French and Miller JJ) [Taylor (CA)]. Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZSC 131.

Select target paragraph3