Every voter's squiggle counts: why Bradfield court battle could drag on for months
The Court of Disputed Returns has the power to declare that any election is absolutely void, or that a person who was returned as elected was not duly elected and that any other candidate is elected. But other than cases of disqualification or corrupt conduct by a candidate, the court can only alter the outcome of an election or declare it void if any error or illegal practice in the conduct of the election was likely to have affected its outcome and 'it is just' to do so.
The law requires that 'real justice' be observed, with the court to be 'guided by the substantial merits and good conscience of each case without regard to legal forms or technicalities'.
Kapterian's challenge is about whether particular ballot papers were mistakenly classified as formal or informal, affecting the outcome of the result. Was a 5 really an 8, and was that squiggle actually a 7?
If a successful claim were made that the outcome could not be known because ballots had gone missing or electors were wrongfully denied the ability to vote, a fresh election would be required. But in this case, as the court can determine the formality of each vote, it is more likely it would either confirm Boele's election or declare Kapterian the winner. A fresh election is unlikely, unless the margin is so close that the outcome cannot be fairly determined, or is affected by other factors, such as multiple voting.
Loading
How long will it take? The Commonwealth Electoral Act contains a section optimistically headed 'Court must make its decision quickly'. But the substance says the court must make its decision 'as quickly as reasonable in the circumstances'. This will depend on a number of factors.
First, there is the question of who constitutes the Court of Disputed Returns. Ordinarily, it is the High Court. But on Friday, the Chief Justice of the High Court, Stephen Gageler, sent it off to the Federal Court to determine. As Kapterian's challenge mostly involves assessments of fact, rather than high legal principle, it is appropriate that it be dealt with by a lower court.
Second, timing will depend on how many ballots need to be reviewed and the time given for the parties to examine them and prepare their arguments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Former Liberal MP Andrew Laming wins a High Court appeal over fines for three Facebook posts
Former Queensland Liberal MP Andrew Laming has won his High Court appeal against a $40,000 fine over three Facebook posts. He was accused of not properly identifying himself as a political candidate upon posting in the lead-up to the 2019 federal election. Andrew Laming was the LNP member for Bowman when he made the Facebook posts on a page he administered titled "Redland Hospital: Let's fight for fair funding". The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) went after Mr Laming for failing to provide the correct authorisation required of political candidates in political communication. Under Australian electoral laws, MPs are required to give details, including their name and location, on any material that is aimed at influencing votes. Mr Laming admitted the posts lacked the required authorisation, but contested whether some of them fell into the category of political communication. The original Federal Court judgment found some of the posts were clearly written by Mr Laming, having been signed by him, including a letter to a journalist, but others did not identify him as the writer or publisher. The judgment noted it was evident from the post "that Mr Laming was pretending it was posted by someone else", even referring to himself in the third person. In the end, the case was narrowed down to three posts and Mr Laming was fined $20,000. But the AEC appealed and the fine was doubled to $40,000. That was to reflect the fact that the posts had been viewed 28 times. Mr Laming took it to the High Court, describing the reasoning as counterintuitive, saying he only made the omission once on each post. The AEC said the purpose of the law was to deter breaches and protect the rights of voters to make an informed choice. The commission told the High Court that on Mr Laming's reasoning, any anonymous political publication would only result in a single contravention, no matter how harmful or wide-reaching it may be. But today the High Court ruled a line in the sand, saying there was a contravention each time the posts were published, not each time they were viewed. Mr Laming quit politics before the 2022 election after a series of unrelated controversies.
The Advertiser
11 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Controversial MP to defend homosexual vilification case
An outspoken MP is set to defend claims of homosexual vilification against a fellow parliamentarian. Former federal Labor leader Mark Latham is due to give evidence at a civil tribunal on Wednesday, a day after NSW independent MP Alex Greenwich accused him of having an "abusive obsession" with him. The case relates to a sexually explicit tweet the Federal Court has previously ruled as defamatory and subsequent media appearances made by Mr Latham, who sits as an independent in the state parliament. Mr Greenwich has sued Mr Latham for homosexual vilification and workplace harassment in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The online sparring match between the two politicians followed violent protests outside a church in Sydney's southwest, where Mr Latham was giving a pre-election speech in March 2023. About 250 mostly male counter-protesters violently attacked police and 15 LGBTQI protesters. Outside the tribunal on Tuesday, Mr Latham accused his rival of lying under oath by suggesting he had ignored police instructions regarding the church incident, leading to an act of political violence. "He's falsely accused me of a crime, it's a crime in NSW to incite violence," Mr Latham told reporters. "I got there after the event, I listened to the police request and correctly made a judgment the meeting could proceed, which it did totally peacefully." Mr Greenwich earlier told the tribunal he believed he was relying on information from NSW Police, provided to him via a journalist. He also outlined to the tribunal the "hatred and ridicule" the tweet had exposed him to. "I have never been so diminished, demeaned, dehumanised by someone ... this was the first time in my political career I'd been so fundamentally attacked for who I am and my sexuality," Mr Greenwich said. Mr Greenwich, who is a vocal advocate for the LGBTQI community, received $140,000 in damages in the Federal Court suit against Mr Latham in 2024. He had sued the former NSW One Nation leader over the tweet sent days after the state election, describing a sex act in explicit terms. It came in response to a post quoting Mr Greenwich describing him as a "disgusting human being". Mr Latham has been embroiled in several recent scandals, including taking photos of women MPs without their knowledge, for which he has already apologised. Lifeline 13 11 14 Fullstop Australia 1800 385 578 An outspoken MP is set to defend claims of homosexual vilification against a fellow parliamentarian. Former federal Labor leader Mark Latham is due to give evidence at a civil tribunal on Wednesday, a day after NSW independent MP Alex Greenwich accused him of having an "abusive obsession" with him. The case relates to a sexually explicit tweet the Federal Court has previously ruled as defamatory and subsequent media appearances made by Mr Latham, who sits as an independent in the state parliament. Mr Greenwich has sued Mr Latham for homosexual vilification and workplace harassment in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The online sparring match between the two politicians followed violent protests outside a church in Sydney's southwest, where Mr Latham was giving a pre-election speech in March 2023. About 250 mostly male counter-protesters violently attacked police and 15 LGBTQI protesters. Outside the tribunal on Tuesday, Mr Latham accused his rival of lying under oath by suggesting he had ignored police instructions regarding the church incident, leading to an act of political violence. "He's falsely accused me of a crime, it's a crime in NSW to incite violence," Mr Latham told reporters. "I got there after the event, I listened to the police request and correctly made a judgment the meeting could proceed, which it did totally peacefully." Mr Greenwich earlier told the tribunal he believed he was relying on information from NSW Police, provided to him via a journalist. He also outlined to the tribunal the "hatred and ridicule" the tweet had exposed him to. "I have never been so diminished, demeaned, dehumanised by someone ... this was the first time in my political career I'd been so fundamentally attacked for who I am and my sexuality," Mr Greenwich said. Mr Greenwich, who is a vocal advocate for the LGBTQI community, received $140,000 in damages in the Federal Court suit against Mr Latham in 2024. He had sued the former NSW One Nation leader over the tweet sent days after the state election, describing a sex act in explicit terms. It came in response to a post quoting Mr Greenwich describing him as a "disgusting human being". Mr Latham has been embroiled in several recent scandals, including taking photos of women MPs without their knowledge, for which he has already apologised. Lifeline 13 11 14 Fullstop Australia 1800 385 578 An outspoken MP is set to defend claims of homosexual vilification against a fellow parliamentarian. Former federal Labor leader Mark Latham is due to give evidence at a civil tribunal on Wednesday, a day after NSW independent MP Alex Greenwich accused him of having an "abusive obsession" with him. The case relates to a sexually explicit tweet the Federal Court has previously ruled as defamatory and subsequent media appearances made by Mr Latham, who sits as an independent in the state parliament. Mr Greenwich has sued Mr Latham for homosexual vilification and workplace harassment in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The online sparring match between the two politicians followed violent protests outside a church in Sydney's southwest, where Mr Latham was giving a pre-election speech in March 2023. About 250 mostly male counter-protesters violently attacked police and 15 LGBTQI protesters. Outside the tribunal on Tuesday, Mr Latham accused his rival of lying under oath by suggesting he had ignored police instructions regarding the church incident, leading to an act of political violence. "He's falsely accused me of a crime, it's a crime in NSW to incite violence," Mr Latham told reporters. "I got there after the event, I listened to the police request and correctly made a judgment the meeting could proceed, which it did totally peacefully." Mr Greenwich earlier told the tribunal he believed he was relying on information from NSW Police, provided to him via a journalist. He also outlined to the tribunal the "hatred and ridicule" the tweet had exposed him to. "I have never been so diminished, demeaned, dehumanised by someone ... this was the first time in my political career I'd been so fundamentally attacked for who I am and my sexuality," Mr Greenwich said. Mr Greenwich, who is a vocal advocate for the LGBTQI community, received $140,000 in damages in the Federal Court suit against Mr Latham in 2024. He had sued the former NSW One Nation leader over the tweet sent days after the state election, describing a sex act in explicit terms. It came in response to a post quoting Mr Greenwich describing him as a "disgusting human being". Mr Latham has been embroiled in several recent scandals, including taking photos of women MPs without their knowledge, for which he has already apologised. Lifeline 13 11 14 Fullstop Australia 1800 385 578 An outspoken MP is set to defend claims of homosexual vilification against a fellow parliamentarian. Former federal Labor leader Mark Latham is due to give evidence at a civil tribunal on Wednesday, a day after NSW independent MP Alex Greenwich accused him of having an "abusive obsession" with him. The case relates to a sexually explicit tweet the Federal Court has previously ruled as defamatory and subsequent media appearances made by Mr Latham, who sits as an independent in the state parliament. Mr Greenwich has sued Mr Latham for homosexual vilification and workplace harassment in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The online sparring match between the two politicians followed violent protests outside a church in Sydney's southwest, where Mr Latham was giving a pre-election speech in March 2023. About 250 mostly male counter-protesters violently attacked police and 15 LGBTQI protesters. Outside the tribunal on Tuesday, Mr Latham accused his rival of lying under oath by suggesting he had ignored police instructions regarding the church incident, leading to an act of political violence. "He's falsely accused me of a crime, it's a crime in NSW to incite violence," Mr Latham told reporters. "I got there after the event, I listened to the police request and correctly made a judgment the meeting could proceed, which it did totally peacefully." Mr Greenwich earlier told the tribunal he believed he was relying on information from NSW Police, provided to him via a journalist. He also outlined to the tribunal the "hatred and ridicule" the tweet had exposed him to. "I have never been so diminished, demeaned, dehumanised by someone ... this was the first time in my political career I'd been so fundamentally attacked for who I am and my sexuality," Mr Greenwich said. Mr Greenwich, who is a vocal advocate for the LGBTQI community, received $140,000 in damages in the Federal Court suit against Mr Latham in 2024. He had sued the former NSW One Nation leader over the tweet sent days after the state election, describing a sex act in explicit terms. It came in response to a post quoting Mr Greenwich describing him as a "disgusting human being". Mr Latham has been embroiled in several recent scandals, including taking photos of women MPs without their knowledge, for which he has already apologised. Lifeline 13 11 14 Fullstop Australia 1800 385 578
Perth Now
11 hours ago
- Perth Now
Failed Lib who made homophobic claims new bid for council
After failed bids at Federal and State politics, a former Liberal candidate who believes same-sex relationships are a 'direct violation of God's law' has now put his hand up for a run at Mandurah council. On Friday, Owen Mulder announced he would be nominating for the Coastal ward at the October Mandurah council elections. This will be Mr Mulder's fourth run for political office. In 2013 he stood for the Australian Christians in the Federal seat of Fremantle and was quoted in a local paper opposing same-sex marriage. Mr Mulder then joined the Liberal Party and ran for the safe Labor State seat of Cockburn in 2021. In March, Mr Mulder was the sole pre-selection Liberal candidate for the State seat of Dawesville and despite an 11 per cent swing to the party, lost to incumbent Lisa Munday. Following his pre-selection for Dawesville last year, it was revealed that Mr Mulder and his wife wrote to a Parliamentary committee urging strong opposition to a Bill considering giving same-sex couples the same superannuation rights as married couples. Owen and Bronya Mulder campaigning at Dawesville Primary during the 2025 State election. Credit: Rachel Fenner 'Marriage is, and must continue to be, the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life,' their submission read. 'The above Bill compromises this position by seeking to give same-sex couples almost all the rights and benefits of marriage.' The Mulders wrote that the Bill 'neglected' that 'marriage has been instituted by God, and must be recognised and honoured in society'. 'Same-sex couple (sic) on the other hand is a direct violation of God's law, which whether we acknowledge it or not, we are all subject to (and will eventually be required to give account to),' they wrote. Following these revelations, Mr Mulder would not say whether or not he stood by his past comments. 'The Federal Parliament resolved these matters in 2017 following a plebiscite in which people had their say,' he said. In a twist, Mr Mulder could see himself running against Coastal ward councillor Bob Pond, who is openly gay and has been married to his husband Ray for years. In a post on social media announcing his plans to run for Coastal ward, Mr Mulder wrote that his desire to serve the community had not changed. 'Meeting with many of you during the campaign highlighted the deep love you have for our community, but also your desire to see key issues addressed,' he added. Council nominations open on August 28.
