Court of Disputed Returns

Last updated

The Court of Disputed Returns is a court, tribunal, or some other body that determines disputes about elections in some common law countries. The court may be known by another name such as the Court of Disputed Elections. In countries that derive their legal tradition from the United Kingdom, the legal tradition is that Parliament is the supreme law-making body in the country. The same tradition mandates that as Parliament is sovereign, it alone has authority and jurisdiction to determine who and how a person can be elected to Parliament. Implicit in that authority is the jurisdiction to determine whether a person has been validly elected, which is commonly known as a "disputed return" and gives the court its name. The court is an attempt to eliminate the partisan nature of parliament and give the determination of electoral disputes to an independent and dispassionate neutral body. As parliament has the sole authority to determine these matters, parliament must create a special law to bring that body into existence to determine those disputes.

Contents

A court of disputed returns may be constituted in a number of ways. The first is by the creation of a special court to perform that function. That has occurred in the Northern Territory, Australia, which has a special and separate court determines those disputes.

Another way is for an existing court to be given the role of the court of disputed returns. Commonly, the phrase "the x court shall be the court of disputed returns". In this case, a separate court is not created, but the existing court is made into and given the jurisdiction of the court of disputed returns. The High Court of Australia, the Supreme Court of New South Wales and the Supreme Court of Victoria are each invested as courts of disputed returns in this manner.

A court may also be simply be the venue for the determination of disputed returns. In New South Wales, the Land and Environment Court determines electoral disputes but is not a court of disputed returns.

In some jurisdictions, the parliament of that country retains the right to determine disputed returns concurrently with the court of disputed returns. Then, both the parliament and the court may both decide the issue.

Generally courts of disputed return have no rights of appeal, but that depends on the law that constitutes the court.

History

Prior to 1405, there was no codified process for resolving electoral disputes. Those disputes were resolved through what is described by authors Graeme Orr and George Williams as "custom, force and administrative action". [1] This meant that there were no real rules in place to determine how these disputes were resolved. The manner of resolving a dispute in one county might be totally different from another county, or may result in a different outcome even if the same procedure was followed.

The first laws to regulate elections in England were passed in the reign of Henry IV. This was through the law numbered "7 Henry IV ch 15" and called "The manner of the Election of Knights of the Shire for a Parliament", made in 1405. The law came about due to the confusion caused when letters were purportedly issued disqualifying lawyers from voting or being elected. [2] In 1429, a law was passed allowing the common law courts to become involved in the determination of these disputes. [2] In the 16th century, it was commonly regarded that the Court of Chancery could determine electoral disputes, particularly as that court issued the various writs to the sheriff and compiled their returns on the election [3]

During the reign of Elizabeth I, the election for Norfolk was disputed in 1586. The Court of Chancery investigated and decided to issue writs for a new election. However, the House of Commons set up its own committee which upheld the election. [3] In 1604, during the reign of James I, a dispute arose as to the election of Sir Francis Goodwin for the seat of Buckinghamshire. The Court of Chancery investigated and determined that a new election should occur. However, the House of Commons established its own committee and found that Goodwin was validly elected. A compromise was made between the King and the House by holding a fresh election.

From the early 17th century, the resolution of disputed returns became accepted as being the prerogative of Parliament. The Court of Chancery then became the means of administering the election process, but Parliament became the arbiter of disputes. [4]

By the 18th century, the process of Parliament determining disputes became tainted. The holding of a seat in Parliament became very valuable. Voting in Parliament had consolidated into voting along party lines. Issues were determined according to the numbers rather than the merits. Grenville’s Act of 1770 [5] established a jury system to reform the process but that process did not satisfactorily resolve the problem.

In 1868 Parliament handed its power to determine disputes to the common law courts. Orr and Williams describe this as a "hot potato" that the courts reluctantly took on. [6] The power was given to two judges of the Queen's Bench. It was described as being "what, according to British ideas, are normally the rights and privileges of the Assembly itself, always jealously maintained and guarded in complete independence of the Crown." [7]

Australia

In most states, the Court of Disputed Returns is the supreme court of that state.

Federal

The High Court of Australia is the Court of Disputed Returns for national elections in Australia. See section 354 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth). [8]

Australian Capital Territory

In the Australian Capital Territory, the Supreme Court is known as the Court of Disputed Elections for the purposes of the Electoral Act 1992 (ACT). [9]

New South Wales

In New South Wales, Supreme Court shall be the Court of Disputed Returns under the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 for state elections. [10] For elections of officers to Aboriginal Land Councils under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW), or a Rural Lands Board under the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 , the Land and Environment Court acts to consider disputed returns. [11]

Northern Territory

The Northern Territory has established the Court of Disputed Returns under the Electoral Act 2004 (NT) as a separate court to determine these disputes. [12]

Queensland

A dispute about an election may be made by petition to the Supreme Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns under the Electoral Act 1992 (Qld). [13]

South Australia

In South Australia, the Supreme Court is the Court of Disputed Returns under the Electoral Act 1985 (SA). [14]

For local government elections, there is a Court of Disputed Returns constituted under which a District Court judge may be appointed. [15]

Victoria

The Supreme Court of Victoria is the Court of Disputed Returns under the Electoral Act 2002 (Vic). [16]

Western Australia

For state elections Section 157 of the Electoral Act (WA) provides that the validity of any election or return may be disputed by petition addressed to the Court of Disputed Returns. The court is constituted by a judge of the Supreme Court of Western Australia sitting in open Court. [17]

For local government elections, the Magistrates Court is the Court of Disputed Returns under the Local Government Act 1995 (WA). [18]

Fiji

The High Court of Fiji is the Court of Disputed Returns for the Island of Fiji under section 73 of the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1997.

Hong Kong

In Hong Kong, electoral legislations establish that the Court of First Instance of the territory's High Court (previously the High Court of Justice of the Supreme Court) would hear election petitions. The sole exception would be selection of the territory's Chief Executive after 1997: Such petitions would directly be heard by the Court of Final Appeal as provided for in the Chief Executive Election Ordinance 2001.

New Zealand

The power to determine electoral disputes was transferred to the courts in 1880 by the Election Petitions Act 1880. Before this, disputes were determined by the Parliament. The change arose through two different election results on identical petitions. [19]

Papua New Guinea

Questions on electoral disputes are referred to the National Court of Papua New Guinea under the Organic Law on National and Local-level Government Elections 2003 (PNG). [20]

See also

Related Research Articles

Adjudication is the legal process by which an arbiter or judge reviews evidence and argumentation, including legal reasoning set forth by opposing parties or litigants, to come to a decision which determines rights and obligations between the parties involved.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of Australia</span> Highest court in Australia

The High Court of Australia is Australia's apex court. It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified within Australia's Constitution.

Tort law in Australia is substantively similar to that of other common law jurisdictions, especially at a foundational level. This is due to the legal system of Australia having been derived from the UK, like most other common law nations around the globe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of equity</span> Court authorized to apply principles of equity to cases

A court of equity, equity court or chancery court is a court that is authorized to apply principles of equity, as opposed to those of law, to cases brought before it.

The judiciary of Australia comprises judges who sit in federal courts and courts of the States and Territories of Australia. The High Court of Australia sits at the apex of the Australian court hierarchy as the ultimate court of appeal on matters of both federal and State law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">District Court of Western Australia</span> Court in Western Australia

The District Court of Western Australia is the intermediate court in Western Australia. The District Court commenced in 1970, amid additional stress placed on the existing Magistrates Court and Supreme Court due to the increasing population of Western Australia. At its inception, the Court consisted of four judges: Sydney Howard Good, William Page Pidgeon, Desmond Charles Heenan and Robert Edmond Jones.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law of Australia</span>

The criminal law of Australia is the body of law in Australia that relates to crime.

In Greece, the Special Highest Court, is provided for in the article 100 of the Constitution of Greece. It is not a permanent court and it sits only when a case belonging to its special competence arises. It is regarded as the supreme "constitutional" and "electoral" court of Greece. Its decisions are irrevocable and binding for all the courts, including the Supreme Courts. However, the Special Highest Court does not have an hierarchical relation with the three Supreme Courts. It is not considered higher than these courts and it does not belong to any branch of the Greek justice system.

<i>Sue v Hill</i> Australian High Court case

Sue v Hill was an Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 23 June 1999. It concerned a dispute over the apparent return of a candidate, Heather Hill, to the Australian Senate in the 1998 federal election. The result was challenged on the basis that Hill was a dual citizen of the United Kingdom and Australia, and that section 44(i) of the Constitution of Australia prevents any person who is the citizen of a "foreign power" from being elected to the Parliament of Australia. The High Court found that, at least for the purposes of section 44(i), the United Kingdom is a foreign power to Australia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Disputed Returns (New South Wales)</span> Special electoral jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia

The Court of Disputed Returns in New South Wales is a court within the Australian court hierarchy established initially in 1928 pursuant to the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment Act, and since 2017 pursuant to the Electoral Act 2017. The jurisdiction of the Court is exercised by the Supreme Court of New South Wales and the Court considers petitions concerning the validity of any election or return under the Act. The Court is concerned with elections held for the New South Wales Parliament and local government elections within the state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales</span>

The Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales conciliates and arbitrates industrial disputes, sets conditions of employment and fixes wages and salaries by making industrial awards, approves enterprise agreements and decides claims of unfair dismissal in New South Wales, a state of Australia. The Commission was established with effect from 2 September 1996 pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act 1996.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Disputed Returns (Australia)</span> Special electoral jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia

The Court of Disputed Returns in Australia is a special jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia. The High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, hears challenges regarding the validity of federal elections. The jurisdiction is twofold: (1) on a petition to the Court by an individual with a relevant interest or by the Australian Electoral Commission, or (2) on a reference by either house of the Commonwealth Parliament. This jurisdiction was initially established by Part XVI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902 and is now contained in Part XXII of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Challenges regarding the validity of State elections are heard by the Supreme Court of that State as the State's Court of Disputed Returns.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Disputed Returns (Queensland)</span> Court that adjudicates election disputes in Queensland, Australia

The Queensland Court of Disputed Returns is a court that adjudicates disputes concerning Queensland Government and local government elections and state referendums in Queensland, Australia. The Court is a division of the Supreme Court of Queensland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2013 Australian federal election</span> Election for the 44th Parliament of Australia

The 2013 Australian federal election to elect the members of the 44th Parliament of Australia took place on 7 September 2013. The centre-right Liberal/National Coalition opposition led by Opposition leader Tony Abbott of the Liberal Party of Australia and Coalition partner the National Party of Australia, led by Warren Truss, defeated the incumbent centre-left Labor Party government of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in a landslide. Labor had been in government for six years since being elected in the 2007 election. This election marked the end of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor government and the start of the 9 year long Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Liberal-National Coalition government. Abbott was sworn in by the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, as Australia's new Prime Minister on 18 September 2013, along with the Abbott Ministry. The 44th Parliament of Australia opened on 12 November 2013, with the members of the House of Representatives and territory senators sworn in. The state senators were sworn in by the next Governor-General Peter Cosgrove on 7 July 2014, with their six-year terms commencing on 1 July.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Kenya</span> Highest court in Kenya

The Supreme Court of Kenya is the highest court in Kenya. It is established under Article 163 of the Kenyan Constitution. As the highest court in the nation, its decisions are binding and set precedent on all other courts in the country.

<i>Blundell v Vardon</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Blundell v Vardon, was the first of three decisions of the High Court of Australia concerning the 1906 election for senators for South Australia. Sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, Barton J held that the election of Anti-Socialist Party candidate Joseph Vardon as the third senator for South Australia was void due to irregularities in the way the returning officers marked some votes. The Parliament of South Australia appointed James O'Loghlin. Vardon sought to have the High Court compel the governor of South Australia to hold a supplementary election, however the High Court held in R v Governor of South Australia; Ex parte Vardon that it had no power to do so. Vardon then petitioned the Senate seeking to remove O'Loghlin and rather than decide the issue, the Senate referred the matter to the High Court. The High Court held in Vardon v O'Loghlin that O'Loghlin had been invalidly appointed and ordered a supplementary election. Vardon and O'Loghlin both contested the supplementary election, with Vardon winning with 54% of the vote.

<i>Chanter v Blackwood</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Chanter v Blackwood and the related case of Maloney v McEacharn were a series of decisions of the High Court of Australia, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns arising from the 1903 federal election for the seats of Riverina and Melbourne in the House of Representatives. Chanter v Blackwood , and Maloney v McEacharn , determined questions of law as to the validity of certain votes. In Chanter v Blackwood Griffith CJ held that 91 votes were invalid and because this exceeded the majority, the election was void, while Chanter v Blackwood dealt with questions of costs. In Maloney v McEacharn more than 300 votes were found to be invalid and the parties agreed it was appropriate for the election to be declared void.

<i>Alley v Gillespie</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Alley v Gillespie, was a significant decision of the High Court of Australia that considered the purpose and scope of s 46 of the Australian Constitution. It was the first application brought under the Common Informers Act 1975 (Cth).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electoral Count Act</span> United States legislation for congressional action in certifying election results

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 (ECA) (Pub. L. 49–90, 24 Stat. 373, later codified at Title 3, Chapter 1) is a United States federal law adding to procedures set out in the Constitution of the United States for the counting of electoral votes following a presidential election. The Act was enacted by Congress in 1887, ten years after the disputed 1876 presidential election, in which several states submitted competing slates of electors and a divided Congress was unable to resolve the deadlock for weeks. Close elections in 1880 and 1884 followed, and again raised the possibility that with no formally established counting procedure in place, partisans in Congress might use the counting process to force a desired result.

A by-election was held for the New South Wales Legislative Assembly electorate of Gordon on 24 September 1938 because the Court of Disputed Returns overturned the result of the 1938 Gordon election. Harry Turner had been declared elected by 9 votes over William Milne. Both candidates were endorsed by the United Australia Party. Milne filed a petition which challenged postal and absentee votes. Justice Maxwell sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns held that most of the 125 challenged votes did not meet the requirement of the Electoral Act such as not being properly witnessed, and that the election was void.

References

  1. ↑ Orr & Williams, 55.
  2. 1 2 Orr & Williams, 56.
  3. 1 2 Orr & Williams, 57.
  4. ↑ Orr & Williams, 58.
  5. ↑ 10 Geo 3 ch 16
  6. ↑ Orr & Williams, 60.
  7. ↑ Strickland v Grima (Malta) [1930] UKPC 7 , (1930) AC 285
  8. ↑ Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) s 354 The Court of Disputed Returns.
  9. ↑ Electoral Act 1992 (ACT) s 252 Court of Disputed Elections.
  10. ↑ Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 (NSW) s 156 The Court of Disputed Returns.
  11. ↑ Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) s 124 Councillors pending determination of disputed return.
  12. ↑ Electoral Act (NT) s 234 Constitution.
  13. ↑ Electoral Act 1992 (Qld) s 137 Supreme Court to be Court of Disputed Returns.
  14. ↑ Electoral Act 1985 (SA) s 103 The Court of Disputed Returns.
  15. ↑ Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 (SA) s 67 Constitution of the Court.
  16. ↑ Electoral Act 2002 (Vic) s 124 The Court of Disputed Returns.
  17. ↑ Electoral Act 1907 (WA) s 157 Validity of election or return, how to dispute.
  18. ↑ Local Government Act 1995 (WA) s 4.81 Complaints to go to Court of Disputed Returns.
  19. ↑ Geiringer, 144.
  20. ↑ "Organic Law on National and Local-level Government Elections". Paclii.org. 21 September 2006. Retrieved 4 June 2010.

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.