Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 

Taylor v AG: Prison voting law inconsistent Bill of Rights

[Full judgment: TaylorvAttorneyGeneral.pdf]

24 July 2015

MEDIA RELEASE

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It does not comprise part of the reasons for that judgment. The full judgment with reasons is the only authoritative document. The full text of the judgment and reasons can be found at www.courtsofnz.govt.nz.

TAYLOR V ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015] NZHC 1706

Overview of the case

Five serving prisoners sought a declaration from the High Court that a blanket ban on prisoner voting that has been in force since the enactment of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 breached the right to vote set out in s 12(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Before the 2010 Amendment Act, only prisoners serving sentences of three years or more were prohibited from voting. Since 16 December 2010, any prisoner who is sentenced to imprisonment loses the right to vote. The High Court held in favour of the prisoners, and made a “declaration of inconsistency” – that is, a formal order that the legislation is both inconsistent with the Bill of Rights and unable to be justified under that Act.

The law and the issues

The Bill of Rights sets out individual rights guaranteed by the State. Included among them is the right to vote, which is of fundamental importance in a democracy. Section 5 of the Bill of Rights recognises that rights may be qualified, but only if the limits are reasonable and can be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. However, even if a Court finds that Parliament has placed unjustified limits on rights, it still has to apply the law.



The Bill of Rights does not provide any express remedy when unjustified limits are placed on rights. Instead, the New Zealand courts have developed remedies – for example, financial compensation – to respond to cases in which the State breaches individual rights. This is done to recognise the purpose served by the Bill of Rights, namely affirmation of fundamental rights.

The issues for the High Court in this case were whether the blanket ban on prisoner voting was an unjustified limit on rights and, if so, whether a declaration of inconsistency was an available remedy.

The result

The High Court found that the law was an unjustified limit on rights. Indeed, the Attorney-General had already concluded that in his report to Parliament before the law was passed. One reason is that the law has arbitrary consequences. For example, a low-level offender given a short prison sentence coinciding with a general election loses the right to vote, whereas a serious offender imprisoned for two and a half years between elections can still vote. Someone who goes to prison because he or she has no suitable home detention address loses the right to vote, whereas someone sentenced to home detention does not.

The High Court also found that a declaration of inconsistency was an available remedy for breaches of the Bill of Rights. This is the first occasion on which such a declaration has been made. The Court also held that this was an appropriate case in which to make a declaration, given the special importance of the right to vote and the unjustified limits placed on that right by the total ban on prisoners voting.

[Full judgment: TaylorvAttorneyGeneral.pdf]

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

SCOOP COVERAGE: CHRISTCHURCH MOSQUES TERROR ATTACK


Gordon Campbell: On Reforming Parliament’s Toxic Culture

It would be nice to think Parliament was a forum where rationality ruled – and where policies are raised and evaluated in terms of their contribution to the greater good. Obviously, it isn’t like that... More>>

Historic Assualt Allegation: Parliamentary Service Staff Member Stood Down
Rt Hon Trevor Mallard said today: “I do not want to cut across any employment or possible police investigations, but I am satisfied that the Parliamentary Service has removed a threat to the safety of women working in the Parliamentary complex." More>>


 

PM And FinMin's Post-Cab: Mental Health Inquiry And Budget Responsibility

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was joined by Minister of Finance Grant Robertson for the last post-cabinet press conference before Thursday's budget. The Government will also announce its delayed response to the mental health inquiry this week. More>>

Budget: New Service For Young People Leaving Care

The Wellbeing Budget contains funding to build a new nation-wide Transition Support Service which is expected to help around 3,000 young people over the next four years after it starts on July 1. More>>

ALSO:

Children's Commissioner: Too Many Youths On Remand In Secure Facilities

It is unacceptable that young people are being remanded to youth detention facilities on charges that have not been proven, Children's Commissioner Andrew Becroft says. More>>

ALSO:

Media Fund: New Alliance For Local Democracy Reporting

The pilot will see eight journalists recruited to provide local democracy news to a wide array of media. Funding will come from the RNZ /NZ On Air Innovation Fund, a one-off $6m fund announced last year. More>>

Gordon Campbell: On Coal’s Negative Message To The School Protest

As schoolkids around the world commited to another round of protest action against climate change, the re-election of (a) the Morrison government in Australia and (b) the Modi government in India have been a kick in the teeth for future generations. More>>

ALSO:

Fatal 2018 Crash: Police Officer Should Not Have Engaged In Pursuit

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has found that a Police officer should not have tried to stop or pursue a car thought to contain young people in Palmerston North on 28 May 2018. More>>

ALSO:

New Poverty Targets: Goals Overlook 174000 Children In Worst Poverty

Child Poverty Action Group is pleased to see the Government set ambitious 10-year targets for child poverty reduction, but we are disappointed not to see a target set for improving thousands of young lives where the worst of poverty is found. More>>

ALSO:

 
 
 
 
 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • PARLIAMENT
  • POLITICS
  • REGIONAL
 
 

InfoPages News Channels