Ngaronoa v Attorney-General

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 102/2017
[2017] NZSC 183

BETWEEN	HINEMANU NGARONOA, SANDRA WILDE, AND ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR Applicants
AND	ATTORNEY-GENERAL First Respondent
AND	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Second Respondent
AND	ELECTORAL COMMISSION Third Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and OʼRegan JJ
Counsel:	R K Francois for Applicants Ngaronoa and Wilde A W Taylor in Person P T Rishworth QC, D J Perkins and G M Taylor for First Respondent
Judgment:	6 December 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A      The application for leave to appeal is granted on the question of whether the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 purported to amend an entrenched provision of the Electoral Act 1993 and thus required a 75 per cent majority to be passed.
B      The application is otherwise dismissed.
C      There is no costs award.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicants seek leave also on the issue of whether the 2010 amendment discriminates on the prohibited ground of race because Māori are over-represented in the New Zealand prison population. The Court of Appeal concluded that there was no discrimination, either direct or indirect.[1]

Our assessment

[1]Ngaronoa v Attorney‑General [2017] NZCA 351, [2017] 3 NZLR 643 (Winkelmann, Asher and Brown JJ) at [137]–[140].

The issues of discrimination and Māori over-representation in prison potentially raise matters of general or public importance. We do not, however, consider this is the right case to consider these issues and, in particular, the intersection between them.[2] We would be considering the issues in a very particular context. Further, a legislative provision is involved and all that is sought is a declaration.[3]

Result

[2]See for example LFDB v SM [2014] NZSC 197, (2014) 22 PRNZ 262 at [21] where it was noted that this Court retains residual discretion to refuse leave to appeal when a case is not a suitable one to determine the legal issues.

[3]For the avoidance of doubt, we are not to be taken as making any comment on the Court of Appeal decision in this case.

The application for leave to appeal is granted on the question of whether the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 purported to amend an entrenched provision of the Electoral Act 1993 and thus required a 75 per cent majority to be passed.
The application is otherwise dismissed.
There is no costs award.

Solicitors:
Amicus Law, Auckland for Applicants Ngaronoa and Wilde
Crown Law Office, Wellington for First Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ngaronoa v Attorney-General involved an application for leave to appeal by the applicants, Hinemanu Ngaronoa, Sandra Wilde, and Arthur William Taylor, against the Attorney-General, the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, and the Electoral Commission. The primary issue at hand was whether the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 properly amended an entrenched provision of the Electoral Act 1993, necessitating a 75 percent majority to pass. The applicants also argued that the amendment discriminated against Māori, who are over-represented in the New Zealand prison population. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed the applicants' arguments on both counts.

The Supreme Court of New Zealand, comprising William Young, Glazebrook, and O'Regan JJ, considered the application for leave to appeal. The court found that the primary issue of whether the 2010 amendment required a 75 percent majority was of general or public importance, and thus, leave to appeal was granted on this specific question. However, the court declined to consider the issue of discrimination and the over-representation of Māori in the prison population, determining that the case was not an appropriate vehicle to address these broader societal issues. The court emphasised that it was not expressing any opinion on the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision.

The Supreme Court's decision granted the applicants leave to appeal on the specific issue of whether the 2010 amendment to the Electoral Act required a 75 percent majority to pass. The broader question of discrimination and the over-representation of Māori in the prison population was dismissed as not suitable for consideration in this case. There was no costs award made.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established