Taylor v Attorney-General

[2014] NZHC 1630

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-4141 [2014] NZHC 1630

UNDER

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990,

the Judicature Amendment Act 1972, Part
30 of the High Court Rules

IN THE MATTER

of a declaration of inconsistency

BETWEEN

ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR First Applicant

HINEMANU NGARONOA, SANDRA WILDE, KIRSTY OLIVIA FENSOM AND CLAIRE THRUPP

Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Applicants

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND

First Respondent

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Second Respondent

Hearing:	26-27 May 2014
Appearances:	First Applicant on own behalf R Francois for the Second-Fifth Applicants J C Pike QC for the Respondents
Judgment:	11 July 2014

JUDGMENT OF BROWN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 July 2014 at 12 noon, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:      Crown Law, Wellington

W Simpson, Papakura

Counsel:       R Francois, Auckland

Copy To:       First Applicant

TAYLOR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZHC 1630 [11 July 2014]

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................[1] The legislative context ...........................................................................................[2] The statement of claim ...........................................................................................[8] The strike out application and opposition ............................................................[19] An issue left open .................................................................................................[23] Respondents’ submissions in support of striking out ...........................................[39] Applicants’ submissions in opposition .................................................................[45] Approach to the application .................................................................................[49] Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688......................................................................[53] The “wider principle” of comity ..........................................................................[61] Jurisdiction or practice? .......................................................................................[69] Analysis ................................................................................................................[79] Respondents’ first proposition  [79] Respondents’ second proposition  [87] Respondents’ third proposition  [89] Second, third and fourth causes of action  [93] The proper parties ................................................................................................[95] Disposition .........................................................................................................[100]

Introduction

[1]      The primary relief sought in this proceeding is a declaration that the Electoral

(Disqualification   of   Sentenced   Prisoners)  Amendment  Act   2010   (“the   2010

Amendment”) is inconsistent with the right to vote under s 12(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).1    The key issue on the respondents’ strike out application is whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding seeking such relief.

The legislative context

[2]      The right to vote in New Zealand is protected by s 12(a) of the NZBORA

which provides:

1      Declarations  are  also  sought  that  the  2010 Amendment  is  inconsistent  with  s  19  of  the NZBORA, ss 21(1)(f) and (g) of the Human Rights Act 1993, s 23(5) of the NZBORA and s 9 of the NZBORA.

12       Electoral rights

Every New Zealand citizen who is of or over the age of 18 years—

(a)       Has the right to vote in genuine periodic elections of members of the House of Representatives, which elections shall be by equal suffrage and by secret ballot;

...

[3]      In order to be qualified  to vote in New Zealand a person must be both qualified to register and be registered on the Electoral Roll.2    As originally enacted the Electoral Act 1993 (“the Act”) provided for the disqualification of certain imprisoned persons from registration as electors as follows:

80       Disqualifications for registration

(1)      The following persons are disqualified for registration as electors:

…

(d)      A person who, under —

(i)       A sentence of imprisonment for life; or

(ii)…