Chanter v Blackwood

The parties to this matter were Chanter, the appellant, and Blackwood, the respondent. The dispute concerned the validity of an election for the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales. The appellant sought to have the election set aside, alleging that certain ballot papers were improperly marked and that illegal practices had occurred. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the provisions of the *Electoral Act 1893* (NSW) regarding the form of ballot papers were mandatory or directory, and whether the striking out of a candidate's name and the writing of another name on a ballot paper rendered it invalid. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether a single act of bribery was sufficient grounds to set aside an election, and the extent of the Court's jurisdiction in relation to the common law of Parliament concerning electoral matters.

The Court examined the relevant provisions of the *Electoral Act 1893* (NSW), particularly those pertaining to the marking of ballot papers. It was held that the requirement for a voter to place a cross within a square opposite the name of a candidate was a directory, not a mandatory, provision. The Court reasoned that the intention of the voter was paramount, and where that intention could be clearly ascertained, minor deviations from the prescribed form should not invalidate the ballot. The Court also considered the common law of Parliament and its relationship with statutory provisions governing elections, concluding that while Parliament had historically retained control over its own elections, the Electoral Act had conferred specific jurisdiction upon the courts to determine the validity of elections and to set them aside in certain circumstances, including where illegal practices had occurred.

The Court ultimately found that the ballot papers in question, despite not being marked strictly in accordance with the Act, sufficiently indicated the voters' intentions and were therefore valid. The Court also determined that while bribery was an illegal practice, the evidence presented did not establish that it had occurred to an extent that would warrant setting aside the election. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.