HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GUMMOW J
RE AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL
COMMISSION & ORS RESPONDENTSEX PARTE NED KELLY APPLICANT/PROSECUTOR
Re Australian Electoral Commission; Ex parte Kelly
[2003] HCA 37
25 June 2003
S403/2002ORDER
1.Leave granted for the applicant to present further written submissions dated 11 June 2003.
2. Application dismissed with costs.
Representation:
D C Fitzgibbon for the applicant/prosecutor (instructed by the applicant/ prosecutor)
No appearance for the first to thirteenth respondents
J Basten QC with R M Henderson for the fourteenth respondent (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
Re Australian Electoral Commission; Ex parte Kelly
Parliamentary elections (Cth) – Senate – New South Wales half Senate election – Whether date fixed for close of nominations in writ for election issued by Governor of New South Wales complied with s 156(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) and s 4A(1) of the Senators' Elections Act 1903 (NSW) – Relationship between Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) and Senators' Elections Act 1903 (NSW) – Nature of relief by way of quo warranto – Whether proclamation by Governor-General proroguing Parliament may validly take effect prior to its publication in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette.
GUMMOW J. This application for an order nisi should be dismissed with costs. The issues involved arise in the following way.
On 10 November 2001, elections were held for the Parliament of the Commonwealth, including an election of six Senators for the State of New South Wales. On 5 December 2001, the Australian Electoral Officer for New South Wales ("the State Electoral Officer") declared as elected to serve as such Senators those persons comprising the fourth to ninth respondents to the present application. On 6 December 2001, the Governor of New South Wales (the third respondent) certified that the writ had been returned in accordance with s 283(1)(b) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) ("the Act").
The writ in question had been signed by the Governor on 8 October 2001 and followed the form indicated in s 152(1) of the Act. For the purposes of that statute, a writ shall be deemed to have been issued at the hour of 6 o'clock in the afternoon of the day on which the writ was issued (s 152(2)). The writ had been addressed to the State Electoral Officer, as required by s 153(1).
Section 152(1) of the Act required the writ to "fix the date for" the close of the electoral rolls, the nomination, the polling, and the return of the writ. Section 156(1), subject to a qualification not presently material, required that the date fixed for the nomination of the candidates "not be less than 10 days nor more than 27 days after the date of the writ". Section 170 detailed the requisites for nomination. In particular, if a nomination was for a Senate election it would not be valid unless the nomination paper or…
Continue reading Re Australian Electoral Commission;
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Re Australian Electoral Commission; [2003] HCA 37
- Case
- [2003] HCA 37
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Court were whether the date for the close of nominations was validly fixed, the nature of the relationship between the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the New South Wales Senators' Elections Act, and the appropriate relief by way of *quo warranto*. Additionally, the Court was required to consider whether a proclamation by the Governor-General proroguing Parliament could validly take effect before its publication in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette.
Gummow J dismissed the application. The reasoning involved an examination of the interplay between Commonwealth and State legislation governing Senate elections and the requirements for the issuance of writs. The Court considered the principles governing the grant of leave for *quo warranto* proceedings and the validity of executive actions, including proclamations, in relation to their publication. The Court ultimately found that the nomination date was validly fixed and that the applicant had not established grounds for the relief sought.
Leave was granted for the applicant to present further written submissions dated 11 June 2003. However, the application was subsequently dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave granted for the applicant to present further written submissions dated 11 June 2003.
2. Application dismissed with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: GUMMOW J
Full text does not contain this section.