翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Taylor Township, Indiana ・ Taylor Township, Lawrence County, Pennsylvania ・ Taylor Township, Marshall County, Iowa ・ Taylor Township, Michigan ・ Taylor Township, Minnesota ・ Taylor Township, Ogle County, Illinois ・ Taylor Township, Owen County, Indiana ・ Taylor Township, Pennsylvania ・ Taylor Township, Traverse County, Minnesota ・ Taylor Township, Union County, Ohio ・ Taylor Tran ・ Taylor Trensch ・ Taylor Twellman ・ Taylor University ・ Taylor University College ・ Taylor v Attorney-General ・ Taylor v Beere ・ Taylor v Caldwell ・ Taylor v Connex South Eastern Ltd ・ Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board ・ Taylor v Plumer ・ Taylor v Secretary of State for Scotland ・ Taylor v. Beckham ・ Taylor v. Illinois ・ Taylor v. Louisiana ・ Taylor v. Mississippi ・ Taylor v. Standard Gas & Electric Co. ・ Taylor v. Sturgell ・ Taylor v. Taintor ・ Taylor v. United States Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Taylor v Attorney-General ： ウィキペディア英語版 Taylor v Attorney-General ''Taylor v Attorney-General'' () NZHC 1706 is a New Zealand High Court judgment which made a formal declaration that a statute that prohibited prisoners from voting is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This was the first time a court had recognised that a formal declaration of inconsistency is an available remedy for statutory breaches of the Bill of Rights. Section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act states, "Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."〔New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, section 5.〕 In his decision, Justice Heath declared that the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 which stripped all voting rights in general elections from prisoners was an unjustified limitation on the right to vote contained in s 12 of the Bill of Rights. ==Background== Justice Heath summarised the background to the legal challenge being, "As a result of an amendment made to the Electoral Act 1993 (the 1993 Act) in 2010, all prisoners incarcerated as a result of a sentence imposed after 16 December 2010 are barred from voting in a General Election."〔''Taylor v Attorney-General'' () NZHC 1706 at ().〕 In response to disenfranchisement, five serving prisoners including career criminal Arthur Taylor "sought a formal declaration from this Court that the prohibition is inconsistent with s 12(a) of the Bill of Rights".〔 The Attorney-General in his 2010 report on the law, mandated by section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act requiring that any inconsistencies with a Bill of Rights right be brought to the attention of Parliament, had concluded, "the blanket disenfranchisement of prisoners appears to be inconsistent with s 12 of the Bill of Rights Act and that it cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act".〔''Taylor v Attorney-General'' () NZHC 1706 at ().〕 Prior to the review proceeding to a substantive hearing the Attorney-General had tried unsuccessfully to have the challenge struck out on the grounds courts had no jurisdiction over this matter and that any relief given "would breach the fundament principle of comity applying to the relationship between the judiciary and Parliament".〔''Taylor v Attorney-General'' () NZHC 1630 at ().〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Taylor v Attorney-General」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.