Prisoners’ right to vote case in court

A ban on prisoners voting in general elections was not inconsistent with the Bill of Rights and no court has the power to say so, the Supreme Court has been told.

Prisoner and jailhouse lawyer Arthur Taylor has brought the action before the High Court along with four others, that the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.

The High Court agreed with him and declared the ban to be inconsistent.

The ban, which prevented all prisoners, from voting, had changed the previous act which said only prisoners with a term over three years were prevented from voting.

The declaration was the first one of its kind and sent a message to Parliament that the law it passed was indefensible as it limited individual rights without reasonable justification.

For the Attorney General, Una Jagose, said the Crown did not admit there was a breach of the Bill of Rights and instead said the court had no inherent power to make the declaration in the first place. It was an important moment being the first time a court had made such a declaration so the outcome was crucial and without precedent.

The Crown was not justifying the law or admitting any breach. Jagose said a person should not be able to come to the court to raise a question for which the court could not make a decision other than to dismiss the case.

‘‘It is bad for our democratic system for the court to take power it does not have to criticise the legislation,’’ she said.

Chief Justice, Dame Sian Elias, said she had no problem with Parliament being the correct place to make assessments of inconsistency, but if it was in breach it could be a question of law and would be valid and helpful.

The court is also to hear from Taylor who has appealed whether he had standing in the case after the Court of Appeal said he was not representative of prisoners since he could not vote even before the act was amended to include all prisoners.