Taylor v Attorney-General of New Zealand

Arthur William Taylor and others brought a case against the Attorney-General of New Zealand seeking a declaration of inconsistency with several sections of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) and the Human Rights Act 1993. The applicants, who are or were serving prisoners, argue that the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 is inconsistent with the right to vote, the right to be free from discrimination, and the right to be treated with humanity and respect for inherent dignity. They requested a priority fixture of no more than two days for the substantive hearing of this proceeding, aiming to deliver a judgment before the general election scheduled for 20 September 2014.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the case warranted a priority fixture and if the applicants could justify the need for urgency. The applicants argued that their right to vote was being unlawfully restricted and that a declaration of inconsistency could lead to legislative change before the upcoming election. The respondents argued that the case was still in its preliminary stage and that Parliament would not be sitting past 31 July 2014, making it unrealistic for any law change to occur before the election.

The court found that the case did not warrant the granting of a priority fixture. The court acknowledged the hardship faced by the applicants but noted that the case was at a very preliminary stage, with no defence filed and a strike-out application pending. The court also highlighted that the applicants had not demonstrated any particular hardship beyond the usual hardship, which would justify priority. Additionally, the court noted that the prospect of a two-day fixture being allocated in mid to late August, leaving sufficient time for a fully reasoned decision on a difficult matter, was unrealistic. The application for a priority fixture was therefore declined.

In summary, the court held that there was no basis to elevate this case above other cases before the Court or to require criminal or other civil work currently allocated fixtures to be vacated to enable this case to be heard and a decision delivered before 20 September 2014. The application was declined, and the applicants were not granted the priority fixture they had sought.