Taylor v Attorney-General

Last updated

Taylor v Attorney-General
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
Court Auckland High Court
Decided24 July 2015
Citation[2015] NZHC 1706
Transcript Available here
Case history
Prior action[2014] NZHC 1630
Court membership
Judge sittingHeath J
Keywords
Prisoners' rights, Electoral law, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

Taylor v Attorney-General[2015] NZHC 1706 is a New Zealand High Court judgment which made a formal declaration that a statute that prohibited prisoners from voting is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The action was brought by Arthur Taylor, a high-profile prison inmate. This was the first time a court had recognised that a formal declaration of inconsistency is an available remedy for statutory breaches of the Bill of Rights. Section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act states, "Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." [1] In his decision, Justice Heath declared that the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 which stripped all voting rights in general elections from prisoners was an unjustified limitation on the right to vote contained in s 12 of the Bill of Rights. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision after the Attorney-General appealed the jurisdiction of the courts to make declarations of inconsistency. [2]

Contents

Background

Justice Heath summarised the background to the legal challenge being, "As a result of an amendment made to the Electoral Act 1993 (the 1993 Act) in 2010, all prisoners incarcerated as a result of a sentence imposed after 16 December 2010 are barred from voting in a General Election." [3] In response to disenfranchisement, five serving prisoners including career criminal Arthur Taylor "sought a formal declaration from this Court that the prohibition is inconsistent with s 12(a) of the Bill of Rights". [3] Mr Taylor was not himself affected by the Amendment Act because he was serving a term exceeding three years’ imprisonment, and had therefore already lost his right to vote; however the other four applicants came within the ambit of the Act, and no question was raised about Taylor's standing. [4] The Attorney-General in his 2010 report on the law, mandated by section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act requiring that any inconsistencies with a Bill of Rights right be brought to the attention of Parliament, had concluded, "the blanket disenfranchisement of prisoners appears to be inconsistent with s 12 of the Bill of Rights Act and that it cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act". [5]

Prior to the review proceeding to a substantive hearing the Attorney-General had tried unsuccessfully to have the challenge struck out on the grounds courts had no jurisdiction over this matter and that any relief given "would breach the fundament principle of comity applying to the relationship between the judiciary and Parliament". [6]

Judgment

In his judgment Justice Heath adopted the reasons given by the Attorney-General in his s 7 report to Parliament on the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act's inconsistency with the Bill of Rights Act. [7] Reasons given by the Attorney-General in his report included that "The objective of the Bill is not rationally linked to the blanket ban on prisoner voting. It is questionable that every person serving a sentence of imprisonment is necessarily a serious offender. People who are not serious offenders will be disenfranchised." [8]

Justice Heath added that there was also an inconsistency with the right to vote in that the law created an arbitrary disparity between those sentenced to imprisonment and those to home detention;

Two co-offenders with equal culpability may receive different types of sentences to respond to the same offending. When one is sentenced to home detention and the other is imprisoned, that will often be because one does not have a suitable address at which home detention can be served. The consequence of the disparity in sentencing is that the offender who is sentenced to imprisonment loses his or her right to vote, whereas the home detainee does not. That is an arbitrary outcome.

— Heath J, Taylor v Attorney-General [9]

As a result, Justice Heath made a declaration mirroring the declaration the Attorney-General had made in his s 7 report;

Section 80(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 1993 (as amended by the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010) is inconsistent with the right to vote affirmed and guaranteed in s 12(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act. [10]

In coming to his conclusion Justice Heath noted,

The inconsistency arises in the context of the most fundamental aspect of a democracy; namely, the right of all citizens to elect those who will govern on their behalf. Looking at the point solely as one of discretion, if a declaration were not made in this case, it is difficult to conceive of one in which it would. Enactment of a statutory provision that is inconsistent with that fundamental right should be marked by a formal declaration of the High Court, rather than by an observation buried in its reasons for judgment.

— Heath J, Taylor v Attorney-General [11]

This statement acted as a response to the Attorney-General's argument that the Court's jurisdiction was limited to indications of inconsistency as seen in Hansen. [12] In that case McGrath J stated that “a New Zealand Court must never shirk its responsibility to indicate, in any case where it concludes that the measure being considered is inconsistent with protected rights, that it has inquired into the possibility of there being an available rights-consistent interpretation [and] that none could be found”. [13] Heath J held that this precedent for indications did not preclude a formal declaration being made when appropriate.

Appeal and updates

The Attorney-General appealed Heath J's decision, and the case was reconsidered by the Court of Appeal in May 2017. [14] The central issue on appeal was whether the High Court should have made a declaration of inconsistency. [15] The Court of Appeal reviewed both the jurisdiction of the courts to make such a declaration and its suitability in the circumstances, and affirmed the decision of the High Court. [16] Furthermore, the Speaker of the House of Representatives challenged the use of parliamentary proceedings in the High Court decision, arguing that this was a breach of parliamentary privilege. [17] The Court concluded that no such breach had occurred. [18]

Attorney-General v Taylor [2018] NZSC 104: The Supreme Court dismissed the Attorney-General's appeal and upheld the lower courts' decisions that the judiciary has the power to issue declarations of inconsistency under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). [19]

Attorney-General v Taylor developments in 2020:

  1. In March 2020, the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill was introduced to Parliament. This bill aims to create a formal process for Parliament to consider declarations of inconsistency made by courts, like the one in the Taylor case. The bill requires the Attorney-General to report a declaration of inconsistency to the House of Representatives within six sitting days of the declaration becoming final. It allows Parliament to review the declaration if it chooses to do so through the adoption or amendment of Standing Orders. [20]

Jurisdiction for declarations

The Attorney-General argued that a declaration was not within the jurisdiction of the courts because it had not been expressly authorised by Parliament. [21] He contended that the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 [22] had sufficiently covered the area, and that this effectively ruled out such a remedy at common law. [23] The Court disagreed: it stated that the Declaratory Judgments Act did not exclude jurisdiction of the courts, [24] and went on to establish multiple sources conferring jurisdiction.

The first source of jurisdiction considered by the Court was the Bill of Rights Act itself. The Bill of Rights does not expressly grant the power to make declarations, nor does it exclude such a power. [25] The Attorney-General accepted that sections 2–6 of the Bill allow the courts to identify inconsistencies between protected rights and other statutes, but said that this is limited to simply making indications of incompatibility, not formal declarations. [26] The Court did not accept this jurisdictional limit. It held that the Bill of Rights intended the courts to point out unjustified limitations on rights, [27] and that to exclude declarations would be contrary to both this purpose and to New Zealand's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [28] Furthermore, a declaration would provide a domestic remedy prior to any available internationally. The Court cited Baigent’s Case [29] in stating that it would make no sense for Parliament to contemplate that New Zealand citizens could seek redress from the United Nations Human Rights Committee, but not from their own courts. [30]

Next the Court turned to a number of cases that suggested the jurisdiction to make declarations should exist. [31] Temese showed acceptance of such a possibility as early as 1992, [32] supported by Baigent’s Case two years later. [33] In Quilter v Attorney-General, the Court held that the Marriage Act 1955 was an unjustified limitation on the right to freedom from discrimination of same sex couples. [34] The Court in Quilter stated: "… once Parliament has charged the Courts with the task of giving meaning and effect to the fundamental rights and freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights, it would be a serious error not to proclaim a violation if and when a violation is found to exist in the law." [35] The Court of Appeal in Attorney-General v Taylor saw this as further acknowledgment of the jurisdiction to make a declaration. [36] Subsequently, Zaoui v Attorney-General included an argument by the Crown that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to make a declaration of inconsistency, and although the High Court did not consider such a declaration appropriate in the circumstances, it acknowledged that the jurisdiction to do so clearly existed. [37] Finally, the most recent case Hansen v R observed that: "a major purpose of a Bill of Rights (entrenched or otherwise) is to prevent minority interests from being overridden by an oppressive or overzealous majority." [38] These precedents were taken by the Court of Appeal as convincing support for the jurisdiction of declarations of inconsistency.

Finally, the Court of Appeal supported the finding of Heath J that section 92J of the Human Rights Act 1993 shows a Parliamentary acceptance of a court's jurisdiction to make declarations of inconsistency. [39] This section gives the Human Rights Review Tribunal the power to declare that an enactment is inconsistent with section 19 of the Bill of Rights, which protects the right to freedom from discrimination. In Taylor v Attorney-General, Heath J stated that it would be difficult to comprehend that Parliament would confer this declaratory power on the Tribunal but not on a more senior court. [40] This is reinforced by the fact that the statute also allows a right of appeal from the Tribunal to the High Court about such declarations. [41] The Court of Appeal agreed with this reasoning.

When a declaration should be made

Having determined that declarations of inconsistency are within the jurisdiction of the High Court, the Court of Appeal went on to consider when such declarations should be made. It stated that the remedy is one of discretion, and is not available as of right. [42] In most cases an indication of incompatibility would suffice, rather than a formal declaration. [43] However the Court accepted that there would certainly be times when a declaration should be used:

A court will consider a DoI only where it is satisfied that the enactment impinges further on a protected right than can be justified in a free and democratic society, and such a conclusion can be reached only after evaluating the policy underlying the enactment and assessing any invitation to defer to another branch of government.

— Wild and Milling JJ, Attorney-General v Taylor [44]

The Court held that in the case before them, a declaration was the appropriate remedy. [45] The reasons for this were: the right to vote is an essential element of a free and democratic society; the limitation on this right was not justified; the legislature was aware of the inconsistency at the time of enactment; and there were no overseas developments that may cause Parliament to reconsider the Act independently. [46] The Court of Appeal did state that Mr Taylor should not have been granted a declaration by himself because the Act in question did not affect him, but as the declaration was made in a single proceeding with joint plaintiffs who were affected, it was correct of the High Court to do so. [47]

Parliamentary privilege

The Speaker of the House of Representatives raised a second challenge to the High Court's declaration by arguing that the High Court had breached parliamentary privilege. In coming to his decision, Heath J had examined the section 7 report before reaching the same conclusion, and the Speaker was concerned that he had effectively reviewed a parliamentary proceeding in doing so. [48] This could be a breach of parliamentary privilege if the Court had questioned Parliament's treatment of the issues. [49] However the Court of Appeal held that Heath J had not done so; he had merely described the parliamentary processes and noted the report's existence before coming to his own conclusion about the same subject matter. [50] This was an acceptable purpose for using such material. [51] The Court also noted that the same situation had occurred in Hansen v R [52] by members of the Supreme Court. [53] Therefore, this second challenge was also dispensed with, as parliamentary privilege had not been breached by the declaration. [54]

Significance

This was the first time a court in New Zealand had recognised that a formal declaration of inconsistency is an available remedy for statutory breaches of the Bill of Rights. [55] Arthur Taylor, in a recorded statement to Radio New Zealand after the verdict said, "His Honour Justice Heath's very courageous decision strikes a strong blow for the rule of law, not only for prisoners, but all other New Zealanders, in upholding their fundamental rights against even the Parliament". [56] A declaration of inconsistency acts as a powerful vindication for those who have no other way of receiving remedy for breaches of their rights. [57]

The other significant outcome of the decision that declarations of inconsistency are within the jurisdiction of the courts is that it acts as a powerful check on parliamentary sovereignty. [58] In New Zealand Parliament is supreme, but this power of the courts to declare laws to be inconsistent places a burden on this supremacy, by requiring that Parliament uphold the fundamental rights of its citizens. [59] It affirms the courts as “upholders of rights, standing between ordinary citizens and the might of Parliament.” [60]

The extent of the significance of this case will depend on whether Parliament remedies the Act in question. [61] A declaration of inconsistency does not invalidate the law, or force Parliament to change the offending statute accordingly. [62] Taylor merely expresses that the courts have a “reasonable expectation that other branches of government, respecting the judicial function, will respond by reappraising the legislation and making any changes that are thought appropriate.” [63] If Parliament chooses to enact a rights-consistent version of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act then Taylor could mark the beginning of a major constitutional development in New Zealand. [64]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robin Cooke, Baron Cooke of Thorndon</span> New Zealand judge (1926–2006)

Robin Brunskill Cooke, Baron Cooke of Thorndon, was a New Zealand judge and later a British Law Lord and member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He is widely considered one of New Zealand's most influential jurists, and is the only New Zealand judge to have sat in the House of Lords. He was a Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong from 1997 to 2006.

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

The Supreme Court of New Zealand is the highest court and the court of last resort of New Zealand. It formally came into being on 1 January 2004 and sat for the first time on 1 July 2004. It replaced the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, based in London. It was created with the passing of the Supreme Court Act 2003, on 15 October 2003. At the time, the creation of the Supreme Court and the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council were controversial constitutional changes in New Zealand. The Supreme Court Act 2003 was repealed on 1 March 2017 and superseded by the Senior Courts Act 2016.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Appeal of New Zealand</span> New Zealands main intermediate appellate court

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand is the principal intermediate appellate court of New Zealand. It is also the final appellate court for a number of matters. In practice, most appeals are resolved at this intermediate appellate level, rather than in the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal has existed as a separate court since 1862 but, until 1957, it was composed of judges of the High Court sitting periodically in panels. In 1957 the Court of Appeal was reconstituted as a permanent court separate from the High Court. It is located in Wellington.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of New Zealand</span> Superior court of New Zealand

The High Court of New Zealand is the superior court of New Zealand. It has general jurisdiction and responsibility, under the Senior Courts Act 2016, as well as the High Court Rules 2016, for the administration of justice throughout New Zealand. There are 18 High Court locations throughout New Zealand, plus one stand-alone registry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990</span> New Zealand statute

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand part of New Zealand's uncodified constitution that sets out the rights and fundamental freedoms of anyone subject to New Zealand law as a bill of rights, and imposes a legal requirement on the attorney-general to provide a report to parliament whenever a bill is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in New Zealand</span>

Human rights in New Zealand are addressed in the various documents which make up the constitution of the country. Specifically, the two main laws which protect human rights are the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. In addition, New Zealand has also ratified numerous international United Nations treaties. The 2009 Human Rights Report by the United States Department of State noted that the government generally respected the rights of individuals, but voiced concerns regarding the social status of the indigenous population.

New Zealand is committed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which contain a right to privacy. Privacy law in New Zealand is dealt with by statute and the common law. The Privacy Act 2020 addresses the collection, storage and handling of information. A general right to privacy has otherwise been created in the tort of privacy. Such a right was recognised in Hosking v Runting [2003] 3 NZLR 385, a case that dealt with publication of private facts. In the subsequent case C v Holland [2012] NZHC 2155 the Court recognised a right to privacy in the sense of seclusion or a right to be free from unwanted intrusion.

<i>Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corp Ltd</i>

Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corp Ltd[1992] UKPC 34, [1993] AC 295 is a New Zealand insolvency law case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council concerning the nature and extent of the liability of a mortgagee, or a receiver and manager, to a mortgagor or a subsequent debenture holder for his actions.

<i>Dunlea v Attorney-General</i>

Dunlea v Attorney-General [2000] NZCA 84; [2000] 3 NZLR 136; (2000) 18 CRNZ 1; (2000) 5 HRNZ 707 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding breaches of Bill of Rights Act civil claims in tort

<i>New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General</i>

New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General, also known as the "Lands" case or "SOE" case, was a seminal New Zealand legal decision marking the beginning of the common law development of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The voting rights of prisoners in New Zealand have changed numerous times since the first election in New Zealand in 1853, with prisoners experiencing varying degrees of enfranchisement. The only time that all prisoners have been allowed to vote in elections in New Zealand was from 1975 to 1977. In 2010 the Electoral Act 1993 was amended to disqualify all prisoners from voting. In 2020 this law was amended so that only persons serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of three years or more are disenfranchised.

Prisoners in New Zealand are afforded numerous, but not all, human rights. Criticisms by a United Nations report in 2014 highlighted various issues that constitute ill-treatment of prisoners, such as remand prisoners being routinely held on lock-down for 19 hours per day, an increasingly strict prison regime, and the mixing of adult and youth prisoners.

The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is well-recognised by the international human rights community. Section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 incorporates this right into New Zealand law, stating that: "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence or otherwise."

<i>Paki v Attorney-General</i> (No 2) New Zealand Supreme Court judgment

Paki v Attorney-General was a case in the Supreme Court of New Zealand that considered whether “usque ad medium filum aquae”, the common law presumption that the purchaser of land adjoining a stream or river also obtains ownership of the waterway to its mid-point applied to the Waikato riverbed adjoining blocks of land at Pouakani, near Mangakino. For differing reasons the Supreme Court unanimously held that the "mid-point presumption" did not apply and "decided that it had not been shown that title determination to the Pouakani land blocks had affected ownership of the riverbed".

<i>Seales v Attorney-General</i>

Seales v Attorney-General[2015] NZHC 1239 was a 2015 court case concerned with whether a doctor could assist a terminally ill patient in ending her own life. Wellington lawyer Lecretia Seales, terminally ill from a brain tumour, sought High Court declarations to the effect that her doctor would not be committing murder, manslaughter or assisting a suicide if he assisted in her euthanasia. Seales also sought, as an alternative, that the court make declarations that the Crimes Act was not consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Court declined to make any of the declarations sought by Seales. Seales died of her illness the day after the judgment was delivered.

<i>Zaoui v Attorney-General</i> (No 2) 2006 New Zealand judicial decision

Zaoui v Attorney-General was the final judicial decision concerning Algerian refugee Ahmed Zaoui before the objections of the Security Intelligence Service concerning Zaoui's alleged threat to national security were withdrawn in September 2007, allowing him to remain in New Zealand. The judgment of the Supreme Court of New Zealand was concerned with the proper interpretation of article 33 of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 and section 72 of the Immigration Act 1987.

<i>Taunoa v Attorney-General</i>

Taunoa v Attorney-General was a case in the Supreme Court of New Zealand concerning breaches of prisoners' Bill of Rights protected rights by the Department of Corrections in the Behaviour Management Regime programme at Auckland Prison between 1998 and 2004.

<i>Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated</i>

Terranova Homes, also styled as TerraNova Homes and sometimes referred to as Terranova v Bartlett, was a decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal concerning equal pay for women, and turned on the interpretation of the Equal Pay Act 1972, which was enacted in response to the 1971 report of the Commission of Inquiry into Equal Pay. It was alleged that the wages paid by TerraNova Homes & Care Ltd to its caregivers were lower than they would be if care giving of the aged were not work predominantly performed by women. O'Regan P, Stevens and French JJ upheld the Employment Court's decision in Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc v TerraNova Homes and Care Ltd that TerraNova was discriminating against its female employees. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, although they thought that the issue was more "finely balanced" than the Employment Court had illustrated in its decision.

Arthur William Taylor is a high-profile former prison inmate who served time in Auckland Prison at Paremoremo, Auckland, New Zealand. In 2016 he had spent 38 years in prison and had a total of 152 convictions. As a prison inmate, he achieved a public profile as a "prison lawyer" due to initiating court action on behalf of himself and prisoners' rights. In 2017, he initiated successful legal action on behalf of former prisoner David Tamihere. On 24 January 2019, Taylor's appearance before a parole board resulted in parole being granted, and he was released on 11 February 2019. He had said not long before release that he wanted to gain a law degree and continue his social work.

<i>Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General</i> 2022 New Zealand Supreme Court judgment

Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General is a 2022 landmark decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand in which the court held that the country's current voting age of 18 was discriminatory. The court found that the provisions in the Electoral Act 1993 and Local Electoral Act 2001 that set the voting age of 18 years was an unjustified limitation on the right to be free from age discrimination in section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA).

References

  1. ↑ New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, section 5.
  2. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215.
  3. 1 2 Taylor v Attorney-General [2015] NZHC 1706 at [3].
  4. ↑ Taylor v Attorney General [2015] NZHC 1706 at [3].
  5. ↑ Taylor v Attorney-General [2015] NZHC 1706 at [27].
  6. ↑ Taylor v Attorney-General [2014] NZHC 1630 at [21].
  7. ↑ Taylor v Attorney-General [2015] NZHC 1706 at [33].
  8. ↑ Taylor v Attorney-General [2015] NZHC 1706 at [29].
  9. ↑ Taylor v Attorney-General [2015] NZHC 1706 at [35].
  10. ↑ Taylor v Attorney-General [2015] NZHC 1706 at [79].
  11. ↑ Taylor v Attorney-General [2015] NZHC 1706 at [77].
  12. ↑ Hansen v R [2007] NZSC 7.
  13. ↑ Hansen v R [2007] NZSC 7 at [253].
  14. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215.
  15. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [4].
  16. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [189].
  17. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [5].
  18. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [146].
  19. ↑ "High Court of Australia Closes Door on Private Prosecutions in Taylor v Attorney-General". Opinio Juris. 14 February 2020. Retrieved 16 September 2024.
  20. ↑ "Search Results". Courts of New Zealand. Retrieved 16 September 2024.
  21. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [41].
  22. ↑ Declaratory Judgments Act 1908
  23. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [41].
  24. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [65].
  25. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [85].
  26. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [91].
  27. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [85].
  28. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [91].
  29. ↑ Simpson v Attorney-General [Baigent’s Case] [1994] 3 NZLR 667 (CA) at 691 per Casey J.
  30. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [89].
  31. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [93]-[103].
  32. ↑ Temese v Police (1992) 9 CRNZ 425 (CA) at 427 per Cooke P.
  33. ↑ Simpson v Attorney-General [Baigent’s Case] [1994] 3 NZLR 667 (CA).
  34. ↑ Quilter v Attorney-General [1988] 1 NZLR 523.
  35. ↑ Quilter v Attorney-General [1988] 1 NZLR 523 at 554 per Thomas J.
  36. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [95].
  37. ↑ Zaoui v Attorney-General [2004] 2 NZLR 339 (HC) at [166].
  38. ↑ Hansen v R [2007] NZSC 7 at [107] per Tipping J.
  39. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [107].
  40. ↑ Taylor v Attorney-General [2015] NZHC 1706 at [64].
  41. ↑ Human Rights Act 1993, ss 123(2)(c)-(d).
  42. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [168].
  43. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [162].
  44. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [153].
  45. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [185].
  46. ↑ Taylor v Attorney-General [2015] NZHC 1706 at [185].
  47. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [189].
  48. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [137].
  49. ↑ Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014, s 11.
  50. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [129].
  51. ↑ Buchanan v Jennings [2001] 3 NZLR 71.
  52. ↑ Hansen v R [2007] NZSC 7.
  53. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [129].
  54. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [146].
  55. ↑ New Zealand High Court (24 July 2015). "Taylor v AG: Prison voting law inconsistent Bill of Rights". Scoop. Retrieved 15 September 2015– via scoop.co.nz.
  56. ↑ Newton, Kate (25 July 2015). "Prison vote law breaches human rights – judge". Radio New Zealand. Retrieved 27 July 2015– via radionz.co.nz.
  57. ↑ Curiae, Amicus. "Keeping a Check on Parliament: the Decision of Attorney-General v Taylor". Equal Justice Project. Retrieved 3 September 2017– via equaljusticeproject.co.nz.
  58. ↑ Curiae, Amicus. "Keeping a Check on Parliament: the Decision of Attorney-General v Taylor". Equal Justice Project. Retrieved 3 September 2017– via equaljusticeproject.co.nz.
  59. ↑ Winter, Stephen. "A constitutional call to action". ADLS. Retrieved 31 August 2017– via www.adls.org.nz.
  60. ↑ Curiae, Amicus. "Keeping a Check on Parliament: the Decision of Attorney-General v Taylor". Equal Justice Project. Retrieved 3 September 2017– via equaljusticeproject.co.nz.
  61. ↑ Geoffrey Palmer “What the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act aimed to do, why it did not succeed and how it can be repaired” (2016) 14(2) New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law 169 at 178.
  62. ↑ Winter, Stephen. "A constitutional call to action". ADLS. Retrieved 31 August 2017– via www.adls.org.nz.
  63. ↑ Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215 at [151].
  64. ↑ Winter, Stephen. "A constitutional call to action". ADLS. Retrieved 31 August 2017– via www.adls.org.nz.
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.