King v SA Electoral Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Adelaide No A6 of 1998

B e t w e e n -
JOHN KING
Applicant
and
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 12 FEBRUARY 1999, AT 4.29 PM

KIRBY J: The Court was notified that no oral submissions were to be given in this case. The Court has considered the written submissions of the parties.

At the threshold of this application stands a question of jurisdiction arising under the Constitution. Mr John King (the applicant), an unsuccessful candidate in an election held for the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia, seeks to challenge a decision of the Court of Disputed Returns of South Australia created by the Electoral Act 1985 (SA). That court, comprising in this case Justice Prior, was constituted by the Supreme Court of South Australia, sitting as a Court of Disputed Returns.

In Homes v Angwin (1906) 4 CLR 297 this Court held that no appeal lay to it from a Court of Disputed Returns established under analogous legislation in Western Australia. That decision has stood for 90 years and through countless State elections in which disputes over returns have arisen.

The applicant wishes to challenge the correctness of the decision in Angwin. The question thus posed might attract special leave given the terms of s 73 of the Constitution. However, when the substance of the matters in conflict are examined, they include no arguable question of law and only challenges to the factual determinations of the Court of Disputed Returns. There is no sufficient prospect of success upon those grounds to warrant the grant of special leave.

The case does not therefore afford a suitable vehicle to permit argument on the constitutional question tendered by the applicant.

Special leave is accordingly refused.

AT 4.31 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered a dispute between Mr. King and the South Australian Electoral Commissioner concerning the validity of certain electoral rolls. Mr. King sought to challenge the inclusion of names on these rolls, alleging they did not meet the requirements of the *Electoral Act 1985* (SA).

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Electoral Commissioner had acted lawfully in compiling and maintaining the electoral rolls, specifically in relation to the criteria for enrolment and the process for removing names from the rolls. The Court was required to interpret the provisions of the *Electoral Act 1985* (SA) governing enrolment and the Commissioner's powers and duties in this regard.

In their joint judgment, Kirby and Callinan JJ affirmed the broad discretion afforded to the Electoral Commissioner in the administration of electoral rolls, provided that discretion is exercised in good faith and for the purposes of the Act. The Court emphasised that the Act confers significant powers on the Commissioner to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the rolls, and that judicial intervention is generally warranted only where there is evidence of bad faith, improper purpose, or a failure to exercise the discretion conferred by the statute. The Court found that the Commissioner's actions in this instance were within the scope of his statutory authority and did not demonstrate any impropriety.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established