Taylor v Attorney-General

Parts of this article (those related to Significance) need to be updated. The reason given is: The significance section, and potentially other parts of the article, require an update as in 2020 Parliament allowed prisoners serving less than 3 years imprisonment the right to vote. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Last update: 7 September 2017 (November 2022)

Taylor v Attorney-General
Court	Auckland High Court
Decided	24 July 2015
Citation	[2015] NZHC 1706
Transcript	Available here
Case history
Prior action	[2014] NZHC 1630
Court membership
Judge sitting	Heath 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]