Ballot scrutiny in Kapiti petition

Press, 26 April 1979, Page 18

Ballot scrutiny in Kapiti petition

PA Wellington The Supreme Court at Wellington has authorised the Chief Electoral Officer (Mr J. L. Wright), to open such packets and documents as were necessary to comply with an order in connection with the Kapiti election petition. The court formally opened the petition and adjourned to May 14 after heia rgn arguments on a preliminary motion. The Court comprised the Chief Justice (Sir Ronald Davison) Mr Justice White, and Mr Justice Beattie.

The petitioner is the unsuccessful Labour Canddate, Mrs Margaret Kerslake Shields. Mr A. A. T. Ellis, with him Mr C. J. Thompson, is appearing for the petitioner. Mr M. J. O’Brien, Q.C., with him Mr J. J. Watts, for the first respondent, the successful National candidate, Barry Edward Brill, and Mr D. P. Neazor, with him Mr J. Wild, for the Kapiti returning officer, Robert

George Montagu, the electorate officer, Vernon Edward Bulians, and Jack Lionel Wright, Chief Electoral Officer named as second, third and fourth respondents respectively. Before the Court was a motion by the first respondent for an order directing the returning officer to report to the Court whether counterfoils of ballot papers issued in the Kapiti. Southern Maori, and Porirua electoral districts existed. Sir Ronald said that the Court was prepared to make the order sought. He also said that it was impossible to proceed with the hearing because of the time the Hunua electorate petition in Auckland was taking.

Nine grounds are put by Mrs Shields in her petition.

They include that upwards of 89 votes were wrongly disallowed because the favoured candidate’s name was marked by a tick or cross instead of striking out the names of the other candidates;

that upwards of 23 persons who were qualified and applied to be enrolled were not enrolled; and that “faulty processing” caused persons not to be enrolled, to be enrolled in the wrong electoral district, or to be enrolled in the Kapiti districts without proper qualifications.

His honour said that during the Hunua petition the booth rolls and counterfoils concerned were not made available to the parties, but the returning officer was in Court and when a check was required the Court directed it. His Honour said that procedure could be improved on by the returning officer’s making the check before the hearing. Under section 121 of the Electoral Act the secrecy of the documents was protected. They were sealed in packets and could not be opened except by order of the Court. The parties were entitled to the information only under the supervision of a Court officer.