Perkins v Cusack [1930] HCA 3

High Court of Australia|1930-07-01|Before: Rich J, Starke J

H.C.or A. The question stated should be answered in the negative. 1929.

Burs, Case remitted to Rich J., with the opinion of th

ws answered in the negative. Costs of the cas v. Frperat to be costs in the appeal. Commis- SIONER OF Lanp Tax.

H.C. or A. Parliamentary Election - Election for House of Representatives - Ballot-papers a

to have been tampered with by persons unknown - Allegation unproved - Prov ee that " Court shall not inquire into the correctness of any Roll" - Effect - Per Metzourne, on Divisional Roll showing residence outside Division - Evidence to prov Feb, 11-13 ; Admissibility - Evidence rejected as challenging correctness of Roll - Commo Mar. 4. wealth Electoral Act 1918-1928 (No. 27 of 1918 - No. 17 of 1928), secs. 39 (3),

Starke J. 112 (2), (3), 118, 115 (1) (a), (2), (6), 116, 138, 1894, 190 - Electoral ar Referendum Regulations (Statutory Rules 1928, No. 80), regs. 46-67. :

'The petitioner sought a declaration that the respondent was not, and that the petitioner was, duly elected as a member of the House of Representatives _ at an election held in October 1929 for the Eden Monaro Electorate in New South Wales. One of the grounds of the petition was that a parcel containing fifty ballot-papers the first preferences on which had been given for the

petitioner had been tampered with by some person or persons unlmown, and 1 ©

forty-nine of such ballot-papers had been abstracted and forty-nine other ballot-papers substituted in the said parcel the first preferences on which were recorded for the respondent.

Sec. 190 of the Commonwealth Blectoral Act 1918-1928 provides: "The Court shall inquire whether or not the petition is duly signed, and so far as Rolls and voting are concerned may inquire into the identity of persons, and whether their votes were improperly admitted or rejected, assuming the Roll to be correct, but the Court shall not inquire into the correctness of any Roll." Sec. 112 (2) prescribes that in the case of a House of Representatives election "an elector shall only be admitted to vote for the election of a member for the Division for which he is enrolled"; and, for the purposes of this section, sub-see, 3 provides that " the electoral Rolls in force at the time of the election shall be conclusive evidence of the right of each person enrolled thereon to vote as an elector" &c, Evidence was tendered by the petitioner to prove that, though the names and addresses of certain persons who had voted at the election were correctly stated in the Roll, the addresses so shown were outside the Electoral Division, and consequently that such persons were not entitled to vote as electors of that Division.

Held, (1) that the Court was, under the provisions of sec. 190, bound to assume that these persons were rightly on the roll; (2) that their right to vote at the election was conclusively established under see, 112 (3), and (3) that such evidence would challenge the correctness of the Roll and was, therefore, not admissible,

This was a petition by John Arthur Perkins seeking, in substance, a declaration that John Joseph Cusack was not, and that the petitioner was, duly elected as a member of the House of Representa- tives, at an election held in October 1929, for the Eden Monaro Division or Electorate of New South Wales.

The petition was heard by Starke J., in whose judgment (hereunder) the grounds, the material facts and the arguments of counsel are fully set out.

O'Bryan, for the Chief Electoral Officer. Cur. adv. vult.

Starke J. delivered the following written judgment : -

This petition of John Arthur Perkins seeks, in substance, declaration that John Joseph Cusack was not, and that the petiti was, duly elected as a member of the House of Representatives, an election held in October 1929, for the Eden Monaro Divisi or Electorate in New South Wales. £

One of the grounds of the petition is thus stated: "That a parcel containing fifty ballot-papers forwarded from the Moss Va 3 Subdivision of the said Division to the Divisional Returning Officer the first preferences on which had been given for " the " petitioner was, between the time the same was transmitted by the A Returning Officer for the said Moss Vale Subdivision to the Returning Officer at Queanbeyan, and the time the same was first recounted by the Divisional Returning Officer, tampered with b

some person or persons unknown, and forty-nine of such ballot- papers were abstracted and forty-nine other ballot-papers substituted in the said parcel the first preferences on which were recorded for the said John Joseph Cusack." This allegation has not been proved. It was proved that the Assistant Returning Officer at Moss Va made a return, setting forth that 1,303 votes were cast for Cusack in that Subdivision and 1,420 for Perkins, but upon a recount made by the Divisional Returning Officer, pursuant to the provisions of sec. 138 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1928, it was found that in a parcel of fifty ballot-papers from the Moss Vale Subdivision one had been cast for Perkins and the remaining forty-nine for Cusack. All had been included in the Moss Vale return as cast fe Perkins. The officers and scrutineers who acted at Moss Vale a convinced that they made no mistake, and they all, I am sure, did their duty honestly and carefully. But mistakes will occur, no matter how careful one may be, and I am convinced that a mistak e did occur at Moss Vale. The ballot-papers there were counted into several parcels of fifty for each candidate, and they were checke more than once. Finally, they were sealed up in packages, and forwarded to the Divisional Returning Officer at Queanbeyan. The: recount took place at Queanbeyan on Sunday 20th October 192 in the presence of the Divisional Returning Officer, his assistants, and scrutineers for each candidate. The parcels of votes (including

those from Moss Vale) were all in exactly the same condition as H- ©. oF A.

when received from the Assistant Returning Officers, and with the seals intact. The seals were broken under the supervision of the Divisional Returning Officer, and the ballot-papers were then distributed to the counting officers, who worked in pairs, and the serutineers for both candidates watched and checked the count. The fifty ballot-papers in dispute were produced before me, and all appeared to be genuine and to bear on their backs the initials of the presiding officer of the Polling Booth. The Divisional Officer, and those present at the recount, have denied any substitution or dishonest action on their part, and it is desirable, though perhaps needless, to say that I have no doubt of their truthfulness or of their honesty. It is the petitioner's duty to satisfy me beyond all reasonable doubt of the grave charge that he has made, and he has wholly failed to sustain that burden. The extreme care of the Returning Officer and his assistants at Moss Vale was pressed upon me, and, on this fact and this fact only, I was asked to conclude that a fraudulent substitution of votes must have taken place. It is unnecessary for me to find how the mistake at Moss Vale occurred, for the petitioner must establish a fraudulent substitution in order to succeed. But, to hazard a guess, I suspect that in counting the votes into parcels of fifty at Moss Vale, one vote cast for Perkins was, by some slip, placed on top of forty-nine votes cast for Cusack, and then the parcel was counted as fifty votes cast for Perkins. Another ground of the petition was that a large number of persons were enrolled as electors of the Division of Eden Monaro and voted at the election who were not entitled to be on the Electors' Roll or to vote in that Division. The suggestion was that the real place of living of these persons was not within the Eden Monaro Division, and certainly was not so within three months immedi- ately preceding polling day in that Division. Now, sec. 190 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1928 provides: "The Court shall inquire whether or not the petition is duly signed, and so far as Rolls and voting are concerned may inquire into the identity of persons, and whether their votes were improperly admitted or rejected, assuming the Roll to be correct, but the Court shall not inquire into the correctness of any Roll.'' Consequently, I rejected evidence tendered

to show that the real living place of these persons was not witl the Division, for that evidence would challenge the correctness of Roll, and such an inquiry is forbidden to this Court by the statut It was argued that the petitioner did not challenge the corres of the Roll, because the addresses given in the Roll were not withi the Eden Monaro Division. Apart from the provisions of sec. 116 of the statute, the challenge is, nevertheless, to the right of these persons to be on the Roll, and is, therefore, forbidden to the It was contended, however, that notwithstanding the inhibition against inquiry into the correctness of any Roll, yet these persons although on the Roll, were not entitled to vote as electors of the Division in respect of which they were enrolled, because their real place of living was not, at some time within three months immediate preceding polling day, within the Division (see sec. 39, sub-sec. proviso). Under sec. 115, sub-sec. 1 (a), the presiding officer at th polling place shall put to every person claiming to vote the follow amongst other, questions: " (ii.) Is your real place of living within the Division . . .? (iii.) (if the last preceding question answered in the negative) - Was your real place of living at a time within the last three months within the Division #& "The voter's answer to any question put to him by the presidin officer under the authority of this section shall be conclusive, the matter shall not, subject to this section, be further inquired i during the polling" (sub-sec. 6). If any person claiming to v to whom the questions are put refuses to answer fully any question" so put to him, or does not answer question (ii.) absolutely in the affirmative when put to him, or, if he answers that question in the negative, does not answer question (iii.) absolutely in the affirmative when put to him, his claim to vote shall be rejected (sec. 115, sub- sec. 2). Then sec. 112, sub-sec. 2, prescribes that in the case of a House of Representatives election " an elector shall only be admitted to vote for the election of a member for the Division for which he is enrolled," and, for the purposes of this section (see sub-sec. 3), "the electoral Rolls in force at the time of the election shall be conclusive evidence of the right of each person enrolled thereon to vote as an elector, unless he shows by his answers to the questions. prescribed by section one hundred and fifteen that he is not entitled

I am bound to assume under sec. 190--then their right to vote at the election is conclusively established, unless their answers to the questions prescribed by sec. 115 show that they are not entitled to vote. It was not suggested that anything in the answers of these persons showed that they were not entitled to vote. Consequently,

in my opinion, the Roll is conclusive, and, as sec. 190 prohibits the Court from inquiring into its correctness, again I rejected the evidence.

Lastly, it was suggested that many of these persons were absent voters, that is, persons to whom the provisions of sec. 113 applied. And it was contended that this class of persons stood, by force of sec. 189a, in a somewhat different position. This section prescribes (sub-sec. 1 (a) ): " When it is proved that a ballot-paper issued under the regulations relating to absent voting . . . has, in any election, been marked by a person who was not entitled to vote at the election, the Court may require the production of . . . the declaration made by that person under the regulations relating to absent voting . . . and . . . may reject the ballot-paper." A good deal may be said for the view that this provision concerns only the identity of the persons voting. But, be that as it may, the Roll in force at the time of the election is conclusive evidence of the right of any person to vote as an elector unless his answers to the prescribed questions show that he was not entitled to vote ; for, in my opinion, regs. 112 (3), coupled with the Statutory Rules of 1928, No. 80, regs. 46-67, apply as well to absent voters as to voters exercising their franchise at the polling places. Consequently, as to this contention, the petitioner fails on the threshold, because he cannot prove that any ballot-paper issued under the regulations relating to absent voting was marked by a person not entitled to vote. Under sec. 190 the Court must, for this purpose too, assume the Roll to be correct, and cannot inquire into its correctness ; I therefore rejected evidence tendered to show that the real place of living of persons who voted in the Eden Monaro Division as absent voters was not in that Division.

Other grounds of the petition were concerned to show that the electoral officers committed various irregularities in connection with

H.C. or A. the election, but, as no evidence was tendered on these cha

ra and they were abandoned at the hearing, I need say no more about

Pers them. ioe The petition must be dismissed, and I see no reason why petitioner should not pay the costs of the respondent Cusack and

Petition dismissed. The petitioner to pay John Joseph Cusack and to the Oh Electoral Officer their costs respectively this spetition. The Principal Registrar of this Court shall forthwith forward to th Clerk of the House of Representatives a copy of the order of the Court on this petition.

Solicitors for the petitioner, Gillott, Moir & Ahern. Solicitors for the respondent, Frank Brennan & Co.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (32 paragraphs)