High Court declaration on prisoner voting rights upheld

The High Court was acting within its power when it declared prison inmates had the right to vote, the Supreme Court has ruled.

In 2013, veteran criminal and "prison lawyer" Arthur Taylor successfully took the Government to the High Court over prisoners' rights to vote. 

Five years on, the Supreme Court on Friday upheld the original High Court decision, which declared that inmates had that right.

The Attorney-General had appealed that decision all the way to the country's highest court.

READ MORE:
* Prisoners take their fight for voting rights to the Supreme Court
* Criminals try to overturn voting ban
* Prisoners should be allowed to vote, High Court says
* Voting a 'basic human right', but not all have it
* Prisoners right to vote 'in the public interest', Supreme Court told

In the Supreme Court judgment, Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias said Taylor was right to apply for a declaration that a law change in 2010 was in breach of the rights of sentenced prisoners to vote.

"Mr Taylor cannot be treated as a busy-body with no sufficient interest in vindication of the rights of prisoners," Chief Justice Elias said. 

Taylor had sought a declaration that the blanket ban on prisoners voting contradicted basic human rights.

At the heart of a Supreme Court case in March was a claim that voting was a protected right that required a 75 per cent "super majority" of Parliament to change it, which a 2010 prisoners' voting ban did not have.

In 1993, Parliament was unanimous that anyone serving a sentence of three years or more should be deprived of their vote.

However, a 2010 law change meant all prisoners serving a sentence of imprisonment were banned from voting.

The ban on all prisoners voting was passed with a simple majority.

In 2015, Justice Paul Heath formally declared the ban to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 

That declaration from the High Court was the first of its kind and sent a formal message to Parliament that the law it passed was indefensible as it limited individual rights without reasonable justification.

However, the Crown then asked the Court of Appeal to overturn Justice Heath's declaration. That appeal was dismissed and Taylor's cross-appeal was allowed.

The Human Rights Commission welcomed the Supreme Court judgment in the landmark case and had participated as an intervener in the Taylor litigation at the Court of Appeal and in the Supreme Court.

The Commission's chief legal advisor Janet Anderson-Bidois said the judgment strengthened New Zealand's constitutional protection of human rights.

"It is not just about the right of prisoners to vote in general elections. It is a case that underscores the importance of the Bill of Rights within our constitutional framework and the role of the courts in ensuring that laws are consistent with our core human rights. 

"The judgment could potentially lead to a wider range of people having access to the courts when they are pursuing a human rights matter that is in the broader public interest," Anderson-Bidois said.

The Commission had advocated strongly in support of the ability of the higher courts to issue declarations that legislation was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.

Earlier this year, the Government announced it was looking at amending the Bill of Rights to enact the power of the higher courts to declare that legislation was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.

"This will also provide an opportunity to consider whether additional rights not currently in the Bill of Rights, such as the right to privacy, and economic, cultural and social rights, should also be included in it," Anderson-Bidois said. 

Hazel Heal, a friend and advocate of Arthur Taylor's, said Taylor phoned her to tell her it was a great day for New Zealand.

He was elated with the news, and said it was proof that people on the lowest rung of society's ladder could change things, she said.