Declarations of Inconsistency under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (2018)
AuthorsJoseph Pshow all
This commentary examines one of Taylor’s cases decided by the Supreme Court in 2018. In AttorneyGeneral v Taylor, the question was whether or not the courts have jurisdiction to grant declarations of inconsistency where legislation cannot be reconciled with a protected right under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). This was the first case in which the High Court had granted such a declaration, and the Attorney-General appealed against the decisions below that the Court was seized of jurisdiction. The case involved the Key Government’s statutory ban on a prisoner’s right to vote in a general election. On appeal, it was common ground that the statutory ban was inconsistent with the right to vote affirmed in s 12(a) of the NZBORA.
CitationJoseph P (2018). Declarations of Inconsistency under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Public Law Review. 30. 1-6.
This citation is automatically generated and may be unreliable. Use as a guide only.