Result [71] For these reasons, in accordance with the view of the majority, the appeal is dismissed. The cross-appeal is allowed. The effect of that decision is that Mr Taylor has standing. However, as the Court of Appeal did not amend the declaration of inconsistency granted,91 we need not amend the order granted below. [72] Costs are reserved. If not able to be agreed, submissions on costs should be filed by the respondents on or before 4 pm on 28 November 2018 and by the appellant on or before 4 pm on 5 December 2018. Any submissions in reply are to be filed by the respondents on or before 4 pm on 12 December 2018. ELIAS CJ [73] The High Court granted the respondents, all sentenced prisoners, a declaration that the voter disqualification for prisoners under 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”.92 The Court of Appeal dismissed the Attorney-General’s appeal.93 He now appeals with leave to the Supreme Court on a point of importance: does the High Court have jurisdiction to grant a declaration that legislation is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? It is accepted that the 2010 Act is inconsistent with the right to vote under s 12(a) and cannot be justified under s 5 as a limitation that is reasonable in a free and democratic society. The Attorney-General’s position is, rather, that the High Court has no power to grant a declaration as a standalone remedy. [74] I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons given by Ellen France J. I agree with her conclusion that a declaration is available as a remedy in circumstances of legislative breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and am in general agreement with her reasons, although I add some additional points of my 91 92 93 Taylor (CA), above n 4, at [189]. Taylor v Attorney-General [2015] NZHC 1706, [2015] 3 NZLR 791 (Heath J) (referred to throughout as Taylor (HC)) at [79]. Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215, [2017] 3 NZLR 24 (Kós P, Randerson, Wild, French and Miller JJ) (referred to throughout as Taylor (CA)).