Costs 'should not be threat’ in petitions

Press, 20 April 1982, Page 6

Costs 'should not be threat’ in petitions

PA Rotorua The threat of cost should not be allowed to stop people from bringing electoral petitions, said Mr H. L. Southwick, Q.C., at a special sitting of the High Court at Wairakei yesterday. He was speaking just before the end of a hearing of an electoral petition brought by the Labour Party’s former member of Parliament for Taupo, Mr John Ridley. The seat is now held : by Mr Roger McClay (Nat.) by 14 votes. After the hearing of the petition had ended, a recount of’some of the votes cast for the seat in the 1981 General Election began. A deouty registrar for the Court at Rotorua, Mr P. D. Sherrin, said the result , of the count would be given to the Speaker as soon as possible, possibly today but more .likely tomorrow. The count is being made 'by a retired registrar.of the High Court at Christchurch,. Mr T. A. F-. Withers, with scrutineers. . Mr Sheerin said that a judgment on the petition would ■ be released by the Court in Rotorua when the Speaker had been given the result of the count. Mr Southwick made submissions on costs after Dr J. M. Priestley, for Mr McClay, had presented a schedule to the Court, as “a guide only,” of expenses totalling 513,510. Dr Priestlev said that this

was the amount which would have been allowed if the hearing of the petition had been a civil action which had failed. The expenses included a hearing fee and the cost of preparing for a trial. Dr Priestley said that an electoral petition ought not to be brought lightly. If the Court, comprising the Chief Justice, Sir Ronald Davison, Mr Justice Quilliam, and Mr Justice Bisson, concluded that the petition had been “ill-conceived and fruitless,” an award of costs should follow to discourage similar petitions in future.

Mr Southwick said the petition dealt with a “very significant democratic right” of people to check the whether the system itself was sound, whether their votes had been allowed, or whether the people had been improperly disenfranchised.

Mr Ridley had believed, and still believed, on the information available that the petition could not be regarded as unnecessary litigation. Under the electoral laws, the Court had the discretion to defray costs between the parties. During the 14-day hearing, Mr Southwick and Dr Priestley presented evidence and submissions on whether certain votes cast should have been allowed or disallowed. Mr G. Judd, for Mr Ridley, and Dr Priestley yesterday made final submissions on various points, including the procedure for registering on an electoral roll, the definition of an electoral 'roll, and the procedure for transferring from one roll to another, in particular for transferring between Maori rolls and general rolls.