Roach v Electoral Commissioner

Last updated

Roach v Electoral Commissioner
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameVickie Lee Roach v Electoral Commissioner & Commonwealth of Australia
Decided30 August 2007 (order)
26 September 2007 (reasons)
Citation(s) [2007] HCA 43, (2007) 233 CLR 162
Transcript(s)28 Mar [2007] HCATrans 122
2 May [2007] HCATrans 187
5 Jun [2007] HCATrans 273
12 Jun [2007] HCATrans 275
13 Jun [2007] HCATrans 276
30 Aug [2007] HCATrans 467
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Heydon & Crennan JJ
Case opinions
(4:2) 2006 legislation disenfranchising all prisoners was invalid, the 3-year criterion in the 2004 legislation was valid.
(per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby & Crennan JJ)

Roach v Electoral Commissioner [1] [2] is a High Court of Australia case, decided in 2007, dealing with the validity of Commonwealth legislation that prevented prisoners from voting. [3] [4] The Court held that the 2006 amendments [4] were inconsistent with the system of representative democracy established by the Constitution. Voting in elections lies at the heart of that system of representative government, and disenfranchisement of a group of adult citizens without a substantial reason would not be consistent with it. [2] The three-year criterion in the 2004 amendments [3] was held to be valid as it sufficiently distinguished between serious lawlessness and less serious but still reprehensible conduct. [2]

Contents

Background

Vicki Lee Roach was a Victorian woman of Aboriginal descent, who was serving a six-year term of imprisonment at the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre in Deer Park. [5] In 2002, Roach and her then partner robbed a milk bar. She was driving the getaway car, being pursued by police, when she struck a car stopped at a traffic light, causing extensive injuries to the 21-year-old driver. Roach had alcohol, tranquilisers, morphine, and a cannabis-related substance in her blood and was subsequently convicted on five counts for offences of burglary, theft, conduct endangering persons, and negligently causing serious injury. On each count, she received a sentence of between 12 months and 3 years, with a total effective sentence of six years and a non-parole period of 4 years. [2] [6] [7]

Roach was represented by Ron Merkel QC , a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia, [8] and assisted by the Human Rights Law Centre. [5] The arguments included that indigenous Australians were disproportionately disqualified from voting, as indigenous Australians are only 2.5% of the population, but constitute more than a quarter of the national prison population. [7] [9]

Decision

Chief Justice Murray Gleeson held that the right to vote was constitutionally protected. Universal suffrage was long established; anything less was not a choice by the people as required by sections 7 and 24 of the Constitution.

Removing the right to vote for serious misconduct was acceptable (hence the previous legislation was valid); however, imprisonment failed as a method of identifying serious criminal misconduct when looking at short-term sentences. These sentences tended to be imposed for arbitrary reasons, such as location or homelessness, that were unrelated to the seriousness of the offence. [1]

Justices William Gummow, Michael Kirby, and Susan Crennan decided the validity of the legislation by applying an "appropriate and adapted" test similar to the second limb of the Lange test respecting freedom of political communication. The arbitrary reasons for imposing, or not imposing, short terms of imprisonment mentioned by Gleeson were used to support this conclusion. [1] [10]

The Court published its orders on 30 August 2007, [11] to ensure people could be enrolled to vote in the 2007 election, [12] and published its reasons on 26 September 2007. [1] [13]

In other words, Roach had won the case and prisoners were allowed to vote in elections but only if they have a sentence below a certain amount of time. Even though Roach won the case she was still not able to vote due to the length of her sentence.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australia Act 1986</span> Legislation by the UK and Australian Parliaments

The Australia Act 1986 is the short title of each of a pair of separate but related pieces of legislation: one an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia, the other an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In Australia they are referred to, respectively, as the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK). These nearly identical Acts were passed by the two parliaments, because of uncertainty as to whether the Commonwealth Parliament alone had the ultimate authority to do so. They were enacted using legislative powers conferred by enabling Acts passed by the parliaments of every Australian state. The Acts came into effect simultaneously, on 3 March 1986.

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Legal cases regarding Australian constitutional law are often handled by the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian judicial system. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kenneth Hayne</span> Australian judge

Kenneth Madison Hayne is a former Justice of the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy.

A double dissolution is a procedure permitted under the Australian Constitution to resolve deadlocks in the bicameral Parliament of Australia between the House of Representatives and the Senate. A double dissolution is the only circumstance in which the entire Senate can be dissolved.

The Constitution Alteration Bill 1946, was a successful proposal to alter the Australian Constitution to give the Commonwealth power over a range of social services. The question was put to a referendum in the 1946 Australian referendum with two other (unrelated) questions. It was carried and inserted into section 51 of the Australian Constitution.

The separation of powers in Australia is the division of the institutions of the Australian government into legislative, executive and judicial branches. This concept is where legislature makes the laws, the executive put the laws into operation, and the judiciary interprets the laws; all independently of each other. The term, and its occurrence in Australia, is due to the text and structure of the Australian Constitution, which derives its influences from democratic concepts embedded in the Westminster system, the doctrine of "responsible government" and the United States version of the separation of powers. However, due to the conventions of the Westminster system, a strict separation of powers is not always evident in the Australian political system, with little separation between the executive and the legislature, with the executive required to be drawn from, and maintain the confidence of, the legislature; a fusion.

Section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution of Australia, commonly called "the race power", is the subsection of Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia granting the Australian Commonwealth the power to make special laws for people of any race.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Native Title Act 1993</span> Act of the Parliament of Australia

The Native Title Act 1993(Cth) is a law passed by the Australian Parliament, the purpose of which is "to provide a national system for the recognition and protection of native title and for its co-existence with the national land management system". The Act was passed by the Keating government following the High Court's decision in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992). The Act commenced operation on 1 January 1994.

<i>Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld)</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575 was a case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the separation of powers in Australia.

A Langer vote was a style of voting in the Australian electoral system designed to avoid the requirement to express preferences for all candidates without the vote being rejected as informal. The title is a tribute to Albert Langer, an Australian political activist, who advocated for the use of this style as a de facto method of optional preferential voting for making a valid vote for the voter's preferred candidates while the deliberate "error" avoided the vote being counted for one of the major political parties.

<i>Crimes Act 1900</i> Legislation of NSW, Australia that establishes a majority of criminal offences

The Crimes Act1900 (NSW) is an Act of the Parliament of New South Wales that defines an extensive list of offences and sets out punishments for the majority of criminal offences in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. The Act, alongside the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), form the almost complete basis of criminal law for the State. It is the primary criminal law statute of NSW, and which formed the basis for the Australian Capital Territory's Crimes Act1900 (ACT).

<i>Combet v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Combet v Commonwealth, was an Australian court case commenced in the original jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia by Greg Combet, then the secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and Nicola Roxon. The plaintiffs challenged the Australian Government's use of public funds to advertise the new Work Choices legislation. The High Court found that the expenditure was authorised by the Appropriation Act 2005–2006.

<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.

<i>Drake v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs</i>

Drake v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs, was a 1979 decision of the Federal Court of Australia dealing with drugs, deportation and judicial roles.

<i>Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd</i> (No 2) Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd , was a decision of the High Court of Australia on 17 April 1985 concerning section 74 of the Constitution of Australia. The Court denied an application by the Attorney-General of Queensland seeking a certificate that would permit the Privy Council to hear an appeal from the High Court's decision in Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd .

<i>Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth</i>

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth, also known as 'S157', is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>Rowe v Electoral Commissioner</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Rowe v Electoral Commissioner is a High Court of Australia case dealing with the requirement of the Australian Constitution that members of Parliament be "directly chosen by the people". The High Court held that Commonwealth legislation that sought to restrict the time in which a person may seek to enroll in an election or alter their enrolment details after the writs for an election have been issued was invalid.

<i>R v Tang</i>

R v Tang is decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>Dinsdale v R</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Dinsdale v R is an Australian legal case decided in the High Court.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Roach v Electoral Commissioner [2007] HCA 43 , (2007) CLR 162
  2. 1 2 3 4 Judgement summary at High Court of Australia website.
  3. 1 2 "Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Prisoner Voting and Other Measures) Act 2004 (Cth)". Commonwealth of Australia.
  4. 1 2 "Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2006 (Cth)". Commonwealth of Australia.
  5. 1 2 "Prisoners and the Right to Vote". Human Rights Law Centre. Archived from the original on 25 April 2013.
  6. ↑ Roach v Electoral Commissioner (2007) CLR 162 at p. 183.
  7. 1 2 "Vickie Roach: 'I was set up for abuse by my childhood'". theguardian.com. Archived from the original on 24 November 2016.
  8. ↑ "Former judges". Federal Court of Australia. Retrieved 25 February 2012.
  9. ↑ Roach v Electoral Commissioner (2007) CLR 162 at p. 164.
  10. ↑ Kirby, Michael (5 October 2007). "Prisoners' Vote is the Australian Way" (PDF). Australian Financial Review..
  11. ↑ Roach v Electoral Commissioner [2007] HCATrans 467.
  12. ↑ Pearlman, Jonathan (31 August 2007). "Court gives vote back to some inmates". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 24 August 2008.
  13. ↑ Topsfield, Jewel. "Leading the charge". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 5 June 2009.
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.