TAYLOR & ORS v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NZ [2014] NZHC 2225

TAYLOR & ORS v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NZ [2014] NZHC 2225

The Court dismissed the interim application. It held s 80(1)(d) is clear and unambiguous and cannot be read down to achieve NZBORA, Treaty or international law consistency; international instruments are not directly enforceable absent incorporation; the Amendment Act did not contravene s 268 because s 74 is entrenched only 'so far as' it prescribes minimum voting age (18) and the 2010 amendment did not alter that; ordinary canons of construction support the validity and application of s 80(1)(d); consequently applicants had no position to preserve and interim relief was refused.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 2225
Parties
First Applicant: Arthur William Taylor; Second Applicant: Joestwain McVay; Third Applicant: Rhys Warren; Fourth Applicant: Hinemanu Ngaronoa; Fifth Applicant: Sandra Wilde; Sixth Applicant: Maritta Matthews; First Respondent: The Attorney‑General of New Zealand; Second Respondent: The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections; Third Respondent: The Electoral Commission
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
12 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Declarations (challenge to Electoral Act Amendment) / Interim Orders Application to Preserve Prisoner Voting Rights (hearing on Urgency)
Outcome
Interim application dismissed; no preservation orders granted
Legal Topics
Prisoner Voting, NZBORA S12 (right to Vote), Statutory Interpretation, Manner and Form Entrenchment (s268), Treaty of Waitangi Implications, International Law Obligations
Constitutional Law Electoral Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Public Law Prisoner Voting NZBORA S12 (right to Vote) Statutory Interpretation +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arthur William Taylor

First Applicant

Joestwain McVay

Second Applicant

Rhys Warren

Third Applicant

Hinemanu Ngaronoa

Fourth Applicant

Sandra Wilde

Fifth Applicant

Maritta Matthews

Sixth Applicant

The Attorney‑General of New Zealand

First Respondent

The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

Second Respondent

The Electoral Commission

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Declarations (challenge to Electoral Act Amendment) / Interim Orders Application to Preserve Prisoner Voting Rights (hearing on Urgency)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 80(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 1993 (as amended 2010) can be read consistently with s 12 NZBORA
  2. 2 Whether s 80(1)(d) can be interpreted consistently with Treaty of Waitangi principles
  3. 3 Whether domestic legislation must be read to comply with international obligations in the absence of incorporation

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the interim application. It held s 80(1)(d) is clear and unambiguous and cannot be read down to achieve NZBORA, Treaty or international law consistency; international instruments are not directly enforceable absent incorporation; the Amendment Act did not contravene s 268 because s 74 is entrenched only 'so far as' it prescribes minimum voting age (18) and the 2010 amendment did not alter that; ordinary canons of construction support the validity and application of s 80(1)(d); consequently applicants had no position to preserve and interim relief was refused.

Court Disposition

Interim application dismissed; no preservation orders granted

Orders

  • Application for interim orders dismissed
  • Registry to convene a telephone conference with Mr Taylor and counsel before the presiding judge to discuss future directions in the remaining proceedings