FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Mitchell v Bailey (No 2) [2008] FCA 692
ADDENDUM
ROB MITCHELL v FRAN BAILEY and THE AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
VID 123 OF 2008
TRACEY J
2 JULY 2008 (addendum dated 28 august 2008)
MELBOURNE
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY |
VID 123 OF 2008 |
|
BETWEEN: |
ROB MITCHELL Petitioner
|
|
AND: |
FRAN BAILEY First Respondent
THE AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION Second Respondent
|
|
JUDGE: |
TRACEY J |
|
DATE: |
2 JULY 2008 (ADDENDUM DATED 29 AUGUST 2008) |
|
PLACE: |
MELBOURNE |
ADDENDUM TO REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 The following Endnote should appear after Page 70 in the judgment:
ENDNOTE
In footnotes 1, 2 and 3 to the Schedule to these reasons it is noted that, having found that ballot-papers numbered 1, 219 and 396 were informal, the Court was unable to adjust the overall vote count to take account of these rulings because there was no evidence before the Court as to how the DRO had dealt with the ballot-papers when they were recounted following the AEO’s decisions that they were formal.
After these reasons were handed down the Australian Electoral Commission advised the Court that “that each of these ballot-papers had, during the recount which preceded the commencement of the petition proceeding, been included in the parcels in which the preferences had been allocated to Mr Mitchell.”
The Australian Electoral Commission also drew attention to a clerical error in the Schedule relating to ballot-paper number 445. In column B it is recorded as having been rejected by the Australian Electoral Officer. In fact it was admitted by him. Accordingly, the number 1 should have been included in Column I and not Column M.
As a result Column I should be increased from 259 to 260, Column J should be increased from 7 to 10 and Column M should be reduced from 66 to 65.
Because of these amendments, a slight variation to the figures contained in paragraph [84] of the judgment is necessary. The figures should read as follows:
|
BAILEY, Fran |
|
|
Election Result |
48,265 |
|
Less Bailey to Informal |
2 |
|
Plus Informal to Bailey |
76 |
|
CDR Result |
48,339 |
|
MITCHELL, Rob |
|
|
Election Result |
48,253 |
|
Less Mitchell to Informal |
10 |
|
Plus Informal to Mitchell |
65 |
|
CDR Result |
48,308 |
|
INFORMAL |
|
|
Election Result |
4,116 |
|
Plus Bailey and Mitchell to Informal |
12 |
|
Less Informal to Bailey and Mitchell |
141 |
|
CDR Result |
3,987 |
Ms Bailey was, therefore, the successful candidate by a margin of 31 votes.
|
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice TRACEY. |
Associate:
Dated: 29 August 2008
|
Counsel for the Applicant: |
Mr P Hanks QC and Mr T Lang |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondents: |
Mr R A Brett QC and Mr D W Bennett |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondents: |
Mr P Santamaria SC and Mr P Gray |
|
Dates of Hearing: |
21 May and 17 June 2008 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
2 July 2008 (Addendum dated 29 August 2008) |
