Declarations of Inconsistency under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorJoseph P
dc.date.accessioned2021-01-10T21:16:00Z
dc.date.available2021-01-10T21:16:00Z
dc.date.issued2018en
dc.date.updated2020-11-09T06:25:12Z
dc.description.abstractThis 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.en
dc.identifier.citationJoseph P (2018). Declarations of Inconsistency under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Public Law Review. 30. 1-6.en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10092/101423
dc.language.isoen
dc.rightsAll rights reserved unless otherwise stateden
dc.rights.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10092/17651en
dc.subject.anzsrcFields of Research::48 - Law and legal studies::4807 - Public law::480703 - Domestic human rights lawen
dc.titleDeclarations of Inconsistency under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
uc.collegeFaculty of Law
uc.departmentSchool of Law
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Arthur William Taylor in the Supreme Court.pdf
Size:
241.2 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Accepted version
Download
Collections
Law: Journal Articles