Court Hears Submissions By Counsel

Chronicle (Levin), 9 May 1947, Page 7

Court Hears Submissions By Counsel

—Press Association

By Teiegrayih-

HAMILTON, May 8. In his address to the Electorai Court today, Mr. W. J. Sim, K.C., said the petition brought by Johnstone followed almost identical lines with those of electorai petitions brought in-New Zeadand in the past 30 years. It difliered only in degree as to the scope and number of the " allegations brought, and that was, perhaps, the result of the modern efficiency of par^r . organisations. The petition was brought to enable the Court to inake a judicial pronouncement on the irregularities which had occurred. In the present case, it appeared froin the start that there had been irregularities of substance'. For instance, some 500 absentee deelarations were not examined by the registrar, and of those examined a number ought to have been disaiiowed. It was also apparent that a number of persons voted who were not entitled to be on the ro 11, including Maoris. There was, therefore no occasion for the comment by Mr. Cleary that this was a lawryer's petition. It was a remark which would be more in keeping before a jury, Mr. Sim said. As for Mr. Cleary 's expressed regret that the hearing had produced notliing reminiscent of a bulltight, he would answer it with another irrelevancy by saying that there was outside the Court another arena, where those who desired it could have all they wished of bulllights. Mr. Sim said he hoped that in this Court the matter had been dealt with witli that serious regard for relevance which was proper, and soiely with the view to their Honours' sense of justice. Eleetors who, at the tiine of application for registration, wrongly declared they had resided for three months in an electorate and whose three months was completed only in the period between the closing of the roll and election day, were included on the roll only because of their false declaration and unless they reregistered their vote would be invalid even at an election years afterwards. Mr. Sira 's argument was raade in support of five of petitioner's objeetions and in support of his request that the Court should set aside the ruling of the 1926 Electorai Court in the SeddonO'Brien case, that voters completing their three months' qualilication between the closing of the rolls and election day, were properly enrolled and were entitled to vote. Mr. Sim submitted that this judgment was not well founded and that persons placed on the roll as the result of an ineorrect declaration, were actually liable to a fine or imprisonment, while the registrar of eleetors was by stat.ute bound to remove them from the roll once the t'alsity of their declaration became known to him. Mr. Sim said the requirement that an eleetor should coinplete three months' residential qualification before enrollling for any electorate, was introduced in the 1924 amendment to the 1908 Act and was written into the new Electorai &ct in 1927. If the registrar discovered, after the closing of the rolls, that u person .with less than thpe months.' qualification"; !had> ; enrolled, : he . had: d clear duty to remove that piersoh from the rolls. Hq cohld nqt assume ;that the eleetor wotild' remain in the electorate until election day. The Chief Justice, Sir Humphrey O'Leary, said many people apparently bclieved they could enrol before their three months' residenc was achieved provided the period was completed before polling day. Possibly those eoncerned with enrolling eleetors had not explained the position properly. Mr. Sim said eleetors in that situation claimed that, having inade a false declaration, their position was legalised by the passage of time. The first assistant to the chief electorai officer had given evidence that his registrars did not follow a uniform practice in their acceptance or otherwise of such applications and in the interests of consistencv in compiling eletoral rolls, it was time an authoritative ruling was given. The Chief Justice: If a person enrolled in 1930 for Raglan after two1 months ' residence in the electorate, you would say his vote was invalid in 1946 even if he voted at the intervening elections? Mr. Sim: That is the position. The learned Judges in the Seddon-0 'Brien case suggested that it was an absurdity but I submit that the absurdity is the responsibility of the legislature. It is for the legislature to remove it not for the court to remove it by an interpretation of the Act that would be contrary to the very explicit language of the Act that three months must be completed inirnediately before application for registration. Mr. T. P. Cleary said it was agreed that an eleetor 's name should be removed from the roll if the registrar learned that a false declaration had been made. The Chief Justice said the SeddonO 'Brien ruling had been followed for twenty years. Mr. Sim: To what extent has it been followed? Mr. Irwin (assistant to the chief electorai officer) has told us of a varying practice in regard to such cn rolments. The Chief Justice said ^the SeddonO 'Brien ruling had been followed in( petitions since 1926 and doubtless would have been followed in any legal advice to Parliamentary candidates coitemplating petitions. Mr. Sim, answering a question by Sir Archibald Blair, as to what harm was done in such cases, said there might be no harm but an eleetor had a clear duty to see that he was qualified before eilrolling. Eleetors were warned on the registration card that they were subject to a fine of £20 or three months ' imprisonment" for a false declaration. There might be a semblance of justification for an eleetor whose three months would be completed before the rolls closed but not for a person whose three months were achieved after the rolls closed because such a person had no right to enrol

for. that electorate'.' Mr. Sim invited the court to hold that the provision in the statute as to the three months' qualification before applying for enrolment, was mandatory, that the Seddon-; O 'Brien decision was wrongly based in allowing defects to be cured by the passage of time, and that no person whose three months was achieved, after the rolls closed 'had any right to be on the roll. When it was mentioned that respondent claimed an infant challenged by petitioher who registered and achieved his majority between the closing of the rolls and election day, was in tjhe same position as the five" eleetors 'discussed by Mr. Sim, the latter said he contend-' ed that even if the Seddon-0 'Brien ruling were not overruled that the preson was not qualified to., enrol and her vote must be disaiiowed.