Roach v Commonwealth ILFDE

Issue:
The issue of this case was whether or not a prisoner should be able to vote, or a prisoner serving a
certain amount of time in prison should be able to vote, or whether the Constitution defended the
right to vote.
Law:
At the time, any prisoner serving more than three years, but then in 2006 an act was made that
disallowed any prisoner who was serving any time at all to vote, however S7 and S24 of the
Constitution
Facts:
Vickie Lee Roach was a prisoner serving a six-year sentence and challenged the 2006 act that
prisoners serving time were banned from voting, deciding that it was unconstitutional according to
S7 and S24, which state that the government must be chosen directly by the people.
Decision:
The High Court did not find in favour of Roach, because she was a prisoner serving more than a 3-
year sentence, and was banned from voting according to the original law. The High Court did
however find the 2006 act that forbade all prisoners from voting was unconstitutional. This was
because people serving shorter sentences were usually not involved in criminal misconduct of a
serious nature, but of a mild nature in general.
Effects:
Because of this case, it was essentially decided that the right to vote and the need for the
government to be made up of representatives from the entire country, including prisoners, unless
they had committed a crime serious enough to get them more than 3 years in jail. Essentially, the
right to vote can only be taken from a person for a relatively serious reason.