Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

B E T W E E N:
REGINA (ON THE APPLICATION OF KEENE)
Appellant

- and -

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE


Respondent

SKELETON ARGUMENT
ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Introduction
1. This is an appeal by the Appellant against a finding by Hardhart J that s.1 of the
Electoral Reform Act 2008 (“ERA”) prevails over s.12 of the Representation
(Candidature) Act 2005 (“RCA”).

Factual Background
2. S.12 RCA provides that a candidate for a Parliamentary election must have been
resident in the relevant constituency for not less than two years prior to election.

3. S.35 of the RCA provides that the Act should not be amended or repealed without
a 75% majority of those voting in both Houses of Parliament. Despite this, in
2008 the Government enacted the ERA 2008.

4. S.1 ERA 2008 purports to extend the required residence period to 5 years.

5. The Appellant (“Mr Keene”) brought a claim for judicial review against the
Secretary of State for Justice following the Appellant’s ineligibility to stand as a
candidate under s.1 ERA. Specifically, Mr Keene disputes the validity of s.1
ERA since it fails to fulfil the requirements of s.35 RCA.

6. At first instance, Hardhart J dismissed the claim, finding that the requirements of
s.1 ERA prevailed. Mr Keene asks the court to allow the appeal on the basis that
the learned judge’s decision was incorrect.
Submissions
First Ground of Appeal
7. [Submission 1]
Constitutional Statute
The RCA is a constitutional statute as per:
• Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] 4 ALL ER 156
• International Transport Roth GmbH v Secretary of State for Home
Department [2002] EWCA Civ 158
8. [Submission 2]
Parliamentary Procedure & Entrenchment
• Parliament Acts 1911 & 1949
• R (on the application of Jackson) v Attorney-General [2005] UK HL 56
• Attorney-General for New South Wales v Trethowan [1932] AC 526
• Harris v The Minister of the Interior (1952) (2) SA 428
• Bribery Commissioner v Ranasignhe [1965] AC 172
• Democracy House of Lords Act 1999

Second Ground of Appeal


9. [Submission 1]
Declaration of Incompatibility (under s.4 Human Rights Act 1998).
RCA 2005 and the ERA 2008 breach Article 25 European Convention on Human
Rights (right to take part in the conduct of public affairs).
• Hirst v. United Kingdom (2003) 37 E.H.R.R. CD176
• S.4 Human Rights Act 1998

Conclusion
10. For the reasons set out above, it is submitted that the court should allow the
appeal and uphold that s.1 ERA is not valid.

JASON ROWE
GEORGINA HOPKINS
MATTHEW SHAW
Counsel for the Appellant
25 November 2009