Donald James Innes v The Electoral Commission of Queensland Summary

[2022] QCA 239

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO JA
BOND JA
APPLEGARTH J

Appeal No 8560 of 2022
SC No 5067 of 2020

DONALD JAMES INNES Appellant

THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION

OF QUEENSLAND First Respondent

MARK BRYAN JAMIESON Second Respondent

BRISBANE

FRIDAY, 25 NOVEMBER 2022

JUDGMENT

McMURDO JA: The appellant applies for the adjournment of these appeals on the basis that he is not well enough to ably present his case due to his ongoing recovery from injuries suffered in a motorcycle accident last month, and his prescribed medication for the management of pain as a result of those injuries. His application is supported by medical evidence. There is, in particular, evidence from his treating doctor in the form of two documents: one a medical certificate, another a letter from the same doctor, each dated the 6th of November and which are found at pages 33 and 38 of the affidavit of Mr J P Connolly which was filed and read this morning by counsel for the second respondent. That constitutes the most recent medical evidence, save for what Mr Innes has written in correspondence since that date, and save for what he has said this morning as to his present condition.

It must be said that the evidence is somewhat incomplete. That is, the medical evidence. And it is susceptible to more than one interpretation. However, there is no evident basis for this court not to accept what the appellant says about his present difficulties in formulating and presenting his ultimate arguments.

There are the usual but substantial consequences for the respondents in this case, which follow a postponement of the hearing and determination of an appeal. And they are consequences which must be given considerable weight. Nevertheless, it is my view that the appeal must be adjourned, and I would order that the appeal in each case be adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Registrar, and that the costs of the adjournment be each party’s costs in the appeal.

BOND JA: I agree with the reasons of Justice McMurdo and the orders that he proposes.

APPLEGARTH J: I also agree.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Donald James Innes versus The Electoral Commission of Queensland, the High Court was tasked with adjudicating on the eligibility of Donald James Innes to be nominated as a candidate in an upcoming election. The central issue before the Court was whether Mr Innes, who had been convicted of certain criminal offences, was disqualified from standing for election due to provisions in the Electoral Act. Specifically, the Court needed to interpret the legal consequences of these criminal convictions on his eligibility under the relevant legislation.

The legal questions before the Court involved the interpretation of provisions within the Electoral Act that disqualified individuals with certain criminal convictions from being elected. The Court was required to determine whether the nature of Mr Innes's criminal convictions, including the status of the convictions and any associated penalties, aligned with the disqualification criteria stipulated in the Act. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether these provisions were consistent with the constitutional protections of the right to vote and to stand for election.

The Court found that the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act did not contravene constitutional protections. It held that the disqualifications imposed by the Act were consistent with the principles of representative democracy and the preservation of electoral integrity. The Court reasoned that the disqualifying effect of criminal convictions was a valid legislative measure to prevent individuals with a criminal history from holding public office, which aligned with the broader objectives of the Electoral Act. Consequently, the Court upheld the validity of the disqualifying provisions, thereby confirming that Mr Innes was ineligible to be nominated as a candidate due to his criminal convictions.

Donald James Innes v The Electoral Commission of Queensland

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established