Prisoner takes on the Government and wins the right to vote
Vickie Lee Roach, an Aboriginal woman, was sentenced to a six year term of imprisonment, having been convicted on five counts of offences which included burglary, conduct endangering persons and negligently causing serious injury. The Electoral Act (1918) provided that only prisoners serving a sentence of 3 or more years were disqualified from voting, however, the amendment to the Act came in 2006, where the Commonwealth Parliament enforced a complete ban on any prisoner voting. Roach sued the Electoral Commission and the Commonwealth Parliament, arguing that the complete ban preventing all prisoners from voting was invalid because: a) It contradicted the concept of ‘representative …show more content…
With the assistance of The Human Rights Law Resource Centre, they took the case to court arguing that the complete ban preventing all prisoners from voting was invalid. When the Commonwealth parliament passed legislation that took away the rights of prisoners to vote, it contradicted the concept of ‘representative government’ and therefore, was not a valid law. Therefore, the Electoral Act (1918) (which stated that prisoners serving a sentence of under 3 years could still vote) was still valid. Ms Roach’s challenge to the validity of the 2006 amendment was heard by the High Court in September 2007. She challenged the validity of the 2006 amendments made to the Electoral Act 1918. The amendments prohibited all prisoners who were serving a sentence of imprisonment for a Commonwealth, state offence from voting in federal elections. Those with opposing views to this issue was the Howard Federal government made an amendment to the 1918 Electoral Act to state that all prisoners had no right to vote, not just prisoners with a term 3 years or
Vickie Lee Roach, an Aboriginal woman, was sentenced to a six year term of imprisonment, having been convicted on five counts of offences which included burglary, conduct endangering persons and negligently causing serious injury. The Electoral Act (1918) provided that only prisoners serving a sentence of 3 or more years were disqualified from voting, however, the amendment to the Act came in 2006, where the Commonwealth Parliament enforced a complete ban on any prisoner voting. Roach sued the Electoral Commission and the Commonwealth Parliament, arguing that the complete ban preventing all prisoners from voting was invalid because: a) It contradicted the concept of ‘representative …show more content…
With the assistance of The Human Rights Law Resource Centre, they took the case to court arguing that the complete ban preventing all prisoners from voting was invalid. When the Commonwealth parliament passed legislation that took away the rights of prisoners to vote, it contradicted the concept of ‘representative government’ and therefore, was not a valid law. Therefore, the Electoral Act (1918) (which stated that prisoners serving a sentence of under 3 years could still vote) was still valid. Ms Roach’s challenge to the validity of the 2006 amendment was heard by the High Court in September 2007. She challenged the validity of the 2006 amendments made to the Electoral Act 1918. The amendments prohibited all prisoners who were serving a sentence of imprisonment for a Commonwealth, state offence from voting in federal elections. Those with opposing views to this issue was the Howard Federal government made an amendment to the 1918 Electoral Act to state that all prisoners had no right to vote, not just prisoners with a term 3 years or