Guernsey Law Reports 2007–08 GLR 304
IN THE MATTER OF THE REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF ELECTORS
ROYAL COURT (Finch, Lieut. Bailiff): April 17th, 2008
Elections—registration of electors—Electoral Roll—amendment—Royal Court has inherent jurisdiction in interests of justice to order addition of electors to Electoral Roll if wrongly omitted or deleted by administrative error—may order publication of correct Roll including previously omitted or deleted names
The Registrar-General of Electors applied to include in the Electoral Roll the names of several persons who had been wrongfully omitted by administrative error.
The categories of electors wrongfully omitted were those who, between January 2007 and January 2008, had made a valid paper or electronic application for inclusion (to which effect had not been given) or, having changed their ordinary place of residence in the Island, had made a valid paper or electronic application for that change to be registered (which had not been done). The Registrar-General sought a declaration that those persons whose names had been deleted in error between those dates remained on the Electoral Roll as at January 31st, 2008.
Held, ordering the inclusion of the missing names and granting the declaration sought:
As the names of the electors in question had either been omitted or deleted by administrative error, the court would exercise its inherent jurisdiction to remedy the error by ordering their inclusion on the Electoral Roll. Its inherent jurisdiction extended to granting relief in any case of injustice, as did its discretionary power to make a declaration, provided that (as here) no prejudice was caused to persons not before the court. The correct Roll, including the names of all those validly entitled to vote, would then be published (paras. 4–5).
Case cited:
(1) Westbury Property Fund Ltd., In re, Royal Ct., Judgment 37/2005, July 4th, 2005, unreported, applied.
W.P.T. Nicol-Gent, Crown Advocate, for the Registrar-General;
W.P. Simpson, for H.M. Procureur, as partie publique.
2007–08 GLR 305
1 FINCH, LIEUT. BAILIFF: This is an application to place on the Electoral Roll around 50 or so individuals who should be on the Roll but who, through no fault of their own, are not. They should be there to exercise their voting rights because they are lawfully entitled to be on the Roll. They have done nothing wrong.
2 I have had a lucid skeleton argument plus supporting documentation from Crown Advocate Nicol-Gent for the Registrar-General, and la partie publique acting in the public interest, in the person of H.M. Procureur, was represented by Advocate Simpson, who made helpful and supportive submissions. Advocate Simpson thoughtfully drew to my attention all the relevant considerations as he saw them.
3 The categories of disenfranchised persons are set out in the cause and depicted further in the explanatory affidavit of Mr. Richings, empowered by the Registrar-General, which I have carefully considered. It is to be observed that no one is being deprived of anything, the application is to restore the correct situation so that persons are not deprived of their democratic right to vote.
4 In In re Westbury Property Fund Ltd. (1), Hancox, Lieut. Bailiff was dealing with a company law matter and noted that the High Court in England and the Royal Court have a discretion to grant a declaration. He commented that “the power to exercise this discretion stems from the paramount duty of the court to do the fullest justice to the plaintiff, or applicant, as the case may be.” One consideration alluded to in the Westbury case is that “there is no suggestion that there is a risk of prejudice to persons not before the court.” Such is the situation today, of course, so, although such an order is unusual, it can be made. The Royal Court, to put it simply, has an inherent power to grant relief in cases of injustice. I would have come to that conclusion even without the useful authority of the Westbury case.
5 It was persuasively submitted that what is now being asked is to publish the correct Electoral Roll, which I accept is to be construed to include all persons validly entitled to vote. I do not favour the strict literal interpretation that we are looking at the present—incomplete, as it appears—pile of papers. This would produce an absurd result. Such a view would involve depriving persons wrongly excluded by administrative errors, not of their own making, from the exercise of a fundamental right. Hence it follows that the Electoral Roll should include all persons who should be validly on the Roll.
6 I have heard that the candidates will be advised of these inclusions and there will be no double voting, which is an offence anyway. The case
2007–08 GLR 306
seemed to me to be overwhelmingly in the public interest and I therefore granted the application.
Order accordingly.
2009
Law Report
None
Guernsey Law Reports 2007–08 GLR 304