Re Mathews & Anor, Ex parte Wilson

The applicants, Mathews and another, sought a writ of prohibition against the respondent, Wilson, who was acting as a returning officer in a federal election. The dispute concerned the validity of certain postal votes cast in the election. The matter came before Dawson J of the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the returning officer had the power to reject postal votes on the grounds that they were not duly completed in accordance with the provisions of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth) (the Act), specifically concerning the declaration made by the elector. The applicants contended that the returning officer's power to reject votes was limited to specific circumstances outlined in the Act and did not extend to a subjective assessment of the elector's compliance with the declaration requirements.

Dawson J reasoned that the Act conferred upon returning officers a discretion to reject postal votes if they were not "duly completed". His Honour interpreted this to mean that the returning officer was entitled to examine the declaration on the postal vote envelope and, if it appeared to him that the elector had not made the declaration required by the Act, he could reject the vote. This discretion was not confined to formal defects but extended to substantive non-compliance with the statutory requirements for the declaration. The principle applied was that the returning officer must be satisfied that the statutory requirements for the declaration have been met, and if not, the vote is not duly completed.

The application for a writ of prohibition was dismissed.