Court of Disputed Returns (Queensland)

Last updated

Queensland Court of Disputed Returns
Coat of Arms of Queensland.svg
Court of Disputed Returns (Queensland)
27°28′4″S153°1′14″E / 27.46778°S 153.02056°E / -27.46778; 153.02056
Established1992 (1992)
Jurisdiction Queensland, Australia
Location Brisbane
Coordinates 27°28′4″S153°1′14″E / 27.46778°S 153.02056°E / -27.46778; 153.02056
Composition method Vice-regal appointment upon nomination by the Premier following the advice of the Attorney-General and Cabinet
Authorized by Queensland Parliament via the Electoral Act 1992 (Qld)
Appeals to Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Queensland
Judge term lengthmandatory retirement by age of 70
Website www.courts.qld.gov.au
Chief Justice of Queensland
Currently Catherine Holmes SC
Since7 September 2015 (2015-09-07)

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.

Contents

A disputed return occurs when the result of an election is questioned. The name disputed returns derives from the practice in common law countries of issuing a writ for the election and then the parliament receiving the results by way of returns after the counting of ballots. The court attempts to eliminate the partisan nature of parliament and gives the determination of electoral disputes to an independent and dispassionate, neutral body. As parliament traditionally has the sole authority to determine these matters, parliament must create a special law to bring that body into existence to determine those disputes. Where there is no law, the parliament itself determines these disputes. In the Queensland situation, the parliament has decided that the court should be the only avenue for disputing an election result.

The Court has no jurisdiction in Australian federal elections, where disputed returns are heard in the Federal Court of Australia or, on appeal, in the High Court of Australia.

History

The Court's jurisdiction over disputed electoral returns can be traced to the practices of the United Kingdom Parliament. There were disputes between the Chancery Court and the House of Commons as to which body had the authority to determine who was rightly elected to Parliament. In 1770, the Grenville Act 1770 (UK) established a form of jury system in which a Select Committee of the House of Commons handled the determination of these disputes. Later, a committee of 11 members was chosen by ballot to report their decision to the House. In 1868, the Parliamentary Elections Act 1868 (UK) was passed, conferring jurisdiction on two judges of the Queen's Bench to determine these issues. The transfer of jurisdiction from Parliament to the courts was hastened by a concern with the partisanship of Parliament in ruling on electoral disputes. Essentially, voting along party lines made these disputes an exercise in the numbers rather than a determination on the merits.

The Queensland situation

At the time of federation in 1901 in Australia, there was no uniform method of resolving election disputes. Western Australia and Tasmania had already transferred jurisdiction over disputed returns to their respective Supreme Courts. Queensland and South Australia alone had created hybrid tribunals. These tribunals were a mixture of politicians and judges who constituted them. Victoria and New South Wales retained the exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputed returns for themselves.

In 1867, Queensland had set up a parliamentary committee called the “Committee of Elections and Qualifications” to determine disputes. In 1886, Queensland set up an Elections Tribunal under the Elections Tribunal Act 1886 (Qld) and revoked the authority of the committee. This continued until 1915 when an election tribunal was set up constituted by a single judge under Elections Act 1915 (Qld) was created replacing the previous tribunal [1] [2]

In 1992 the election tribunal was disbanded. In its place, the Electoral Act 1992 (Qld) established the Court of Disputed Returns as a division of the Supreme Court; to mirror the legal situation in the Australian court hierarchy with the High Court of Australia and the situation in other states, such as with the Supreme Court of New South Wales. In effect, the Supreme Court exercises the jurisdiction of disputed returns, rather than actually as a special tribunal or as acting as persona designata. [3]

Procedure

A dispute about an election may be made by petition to the Supreme Court, which sits as the Court of Disputed Returns. The petition can be heard by a single judge or it can be heard by more than one judge depending on the nature of the petition. Generally, only a single judge hears the case. The petition can be made by a candidate at the election for the electoral district concerned, an elector for the electoral district concerned, a person who the Electoral Commission decided was not properly nominated, or the Electoral Commission itself. [4] The petitioner must make the application within seven days and pay a filing fee. The court may conduct hearings or other proceedings in relation to the petition. It is not bound by technicalities, legal forms or rules of evidence. It must deal with the petition as quickly as is reasonable in the circumstances. Wherever possible, it must ensure that the petition hearing begins within 28 days after the petition is lodged and the court’s final orders are given within 14 days after the end of the proceeding. [5] In making a decision, the Court must exercise its judgment according to its good conscience and according to what it considers to be the substantial merits of the case as to whether the respective common law or statutory criteria have been met. It permits resort to a common sense judgment in all the circumstances. However, the court's judgment cannot be merely arbitrary. [6]

Caseload

In 1995 the court heard its first petition under the new election laws. This was a petition concerning the return for the 1995 election of a member for the Electoral district of Mundingburra. The court noted that there were 22,035 enrolled voters, of which 2,513 did not cast a vote. Of those votes, 287 were informal votes. On the remaining 19,235 votes, the petitioner received 8,541 first preference votes whilst the elected person received 8,429 votes. The voting then went to preferences. On second preferences, the petitioner received 751 of those second preference votes and the elected person received 879 votes. This meant that the elected person received 9,308 votes whilst the petitioner received 9,292 votes. The end result was the elected person was elected by a majority of 16 votes. The court analysed the voting process and determined that there were 35 instances of invalid voting or correct voting which had been rejected. In the circumstances, the Justice Ambrose ordered a fresh election for the electorate of Mundingburra. [7]

In the same year, the court also determined a preliminary issue for a petition concerning the election return for the Electoral district of Greenslopes. In that case, the petitioner alleged that the Electoral Commission has not followed procedures in counting declaration votes, and as a result, the whole election for Greenslopes should be declared as invalid. The court dismissed the application noting that even if it was correct, the number of informal would total 3,504 votes instead of 420 votes, and the elected person would have received 8,143 votes as against the petitioner’s 7,946 votes. [8]

In 1998, the court heard a petition concerning the election held on 13 June 1998 of a member of parliament for the Electoral district of Mansfield. The petitioner was the former sitting member representing the Liberals whilst the Labor candidate was declared elected. The petition alleged that a how to vote card was handed out by Labor party workers to voters for the One Nation Party (ONP), which directed second preferences to Labor. The how to vote card was a Labor authorised card rather than an ONP authorised card. In the circumstances of the dispute, the court dismissed the petition. [9]

In 2001 and 2004, a person declared by the Supreme Court of Queensland to be vexatious, attempted to bring a case in the Court of Disputed Returns against the Premier of Queensland, Peter Beattie. The basis of his applications was a “remedy of long standing defects in respect of the manner in which the State and Nation’s affairs” are conducted, [10] or in other words, that the Queensland Government was unconstitutional. The basis of his application was that the legal tender of money could only be made in coins made of gold (and not paper money or ordinary coins), and secondly, that the whole of the Queensland Government was invalid as a change to the governor’s office was not approved by way of a referendum. The person was not permitted to bring the petition, and the presiding judge, Justice Chesterman wryly noted that he could not understand why the applicant was petitioning the court to be elected to a parliament which he claimed was actually invalid.

Appeals

Generally courts of disputed returns have no rights of appeal. In the Queensland situation, there is a limited right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on a question of law. This appeal must be lodged within seven days. [11]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vice President of India</span> Second-highest constitutional office of India

The vice president of India is the deputy to the head of state of the Republic of India, i.e. the president of India. The office of vice president is the second-highest constitutional office after the president and ranks second in the order of precedence and first in the line of succession to the presidency. The vice president is also the ex officio chairman of the Rajya Sabha.

One of the six founding states of Australia, Queensland has been a federated state subject to the Australian Constitution since 1 January 1901. It is sovereign, other than in the matters ceded in the Australian Constitution to the federal government. It is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. The Constitution of Queensland sets out the operation of the state's government. The state's constitution contains several entrenched provisions which cannot be changed in the absence of a referendum. There is also a statutory bill of rights, the Queensland Human Rights Act (2019). Queensland's system of government is influenced by the Westminster system and Australia's federal system of government.

Election law is a branch of public law that relates to the democratic processes, election of representatives and office holders, and referendums, through the regulation of the electoral system, voting rights, ballot access, election management bodies, election campaign, the division of the territory into electoral zones, the procedures for the registration of voters and candidacies, its financing and propaganda, voting, counting of votes, scrutiny, electoral disputes, electoral observation and all contentious matters derived from them. It is a discipline falling at the juncture of constitutional law and political science, and involves "the politics of law and the law of politics".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Queensland</span> Highest court in the state of Queensland, Australia

The Supreme Court of Queensland is the highest court in the Australian State of Queensland. It was formerly the Brisbane Supreme Court, in the colony of Queensland.

An election petition refers to the procedure for challenging the result of a Parliamentary election.

<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">Electoral district of Mundingburra</span> State electoral district of Queensland, Australia

Mundingburra is an electoral district of the Legislative Assembly in the Australian state of Queensland. It is currently held by Labor Party MP Les Walker.

<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">District Court of Queensland</span>

The District Court of Queensland(QDC) is the second tier in the court hierarchy of Queensland, Australia. The Court deals with serious criminal offences such as rape, armed robbery and fraud. Juries are used to decide if defendants are guilty or not guilty.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Children's Court of Queensland</span>

The Children's Court of Queensland is a specialized court in Queensland, a state of Australia which deals with serious crimes committed by children under the age of seventeen years in the state.

<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.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rob Mitchell (Victorian politician)</span> Australian politician

Robert George Mitchell is an Australian politician. He has been an Australian Labor Party member of the Australian House of Representatives since August 2010, representing the electorate of McEwen. He was a member of the Victorian Legislative Council from 2002 to 2006, and was Second Deputy Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives from 2013 to 2022.

<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.

The Kenya Presidential Election Petition of 2013 was an election petition aiming to declare the Kenya presidential election 2013 invalid. The Petition was filed at the Supreme Court of Kenya on 16 March 2013.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Australia Party (2013)</span> Political party in Australia

The United Australia Party (UAP), formerly known as Clive Palmer's United Australia Party and the Palmer United Party (PUP), is an Australian political party formed by mining magnate Clive Palmer in April 2013. The party was deregistered by the Australian Electoral Commission in 2017, revived and re-registered in 2018, and voluntarily deregistered in 2022. The party fielded candidates in all 150 House of Representatives seats at the 2013 federal election. Palmer, the party's leader, was elected to the Division of Fairfax and it reached a peak of three senators following the rerun of the Western Australian senate election in 2014. When the party was revived under its original name in 2018, it was represented by ex-One Nation senator Brian Burston in the federal parliament.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Uruguay</span>

The judiciary of Uruguay is a branch of the government of Uruguay that interprets and applies the laws of Uruguay, to ensure equal justice under law, and to provide a mechanism for dispute resolution. The legal system of Uruguay is a civil law system, with public law based on the 1967 Constitution, amended in 1989, 1994, 1997, and 2004. The Constitution declares Uruguay to be a democratic republic, and separates the government into three equal branches, executive, legislative and judicial. Private relationships are subject to the Uruguayan Civil Code, originally published in 1868. The Constitution defines the judiciary as a hierarchical system courts, with the highest court being a five-member Supreme Court, who are appointed by the legislative branch of the government, for ten-year terms. The Supreme Court appoints the judges of most of the lower courts. Below the Supreme Court, there are sixteen courts of appeal, each of which has three judges. Seven of the courts of appeal specialize in civil matters, four specialize in criminal matters, three cover labour law, and two focus on family matters. At the lowest tier are justices of the peace and courts of first instance specialized in administrative, civil, criminal, customs, juvenile, and labour cases. Although the hierarchy, all of them are functionally and structurally impartial, that is, the tribunal should not be interested in the object of the particular case, and the higher tribunal does not impose a behaviour nor precedent to the lower ones. There are also separate courts for auditing, elections and the military.

<i>Erlam v Rahman</i>

Erlam and others v Rahman and another [2015] EWHC 1215 (QB) is an English election court case challenging the 2014 election of Lutfur Rahman as the Mayor of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. On 23 April 2015, Election Commissioner Richard Mawrey voided Rahman's election under the Representation of the People Act 1983 on the grounds of corrupt and illegal practices by him and his agents, and general corruption so extensively prevailing so to reasonably supposed to have affected the election. Rahman's official election agent Alibor Choudhury was ordered to vacate his own office of councillor in the ward of Stepney Green for being guilty of corrupt and illegal practices.

<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.

References

  1. ↑ Webb v Hanlon,150ALR(SCQ1939).
  2. ↑ Schoff, P. (1997). "The Electoral Jurisdiction of the High Court as the Court of Disputed Returns: Non-Judicial Power an Incompatible Function?". Federal Law Review. pp. 326–329. Archived from the original on 26 October 2000.
  3. ↑ Skyring v Electoral Commission of Queensland,1R442(SCQ2002).
  4. ↑ "No by-election in Ferny Grove: ECQ". Sunshine Coast Daily . 13 February 2015. Retrieved 5 August 2016.
  5. ↑ Electoral Act 1992 (Qld) s 8
  6. ↑ Featherston v. Tully,243SASC: Court of Disputed Returns (South Australia)(2002)("Per Justice Bleby").
  7. ↑ TantI v Davies (No. 3),6022QLDR(1996).
  8. ↑ Fenlon v Radke,1572QLDR(1996).
  9. ↑ Carroll v Electoral Commission of Queensland (No. 1),1171QLDR(2001).
  10. ↑ Skyring v Lohe [2004] QSC 089 and Skyring v Electoral Commission of Qld & Anor [2001] QSC 080
  11. ↑ section 148A

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.