Taxpayers fork out thousands for prisoner's legal cases

Crown Law confirmed it had spent $368,921.54 to defend actions brought by serial prison litigant Arthur Taylor.

Two High Court scraps with one of the country's most notorious career criminals, including an unsuccessful attempt to defend a voting ban on prisoners, cost taxpayers $368,000.

Crown Law confirmed it had spent $368,921.54 to defend actions brought by serial prison litigant Arthur Taylor.

In one case, Taylor, who is serving lengthy sentences for a raft of crimes involving drugs, firearms and kidnapping, took on Corrections' chief executive Ray Smith who assigned him a "high" security classification. Judge Rebecca Ellis reserved judgment on September 11.

The other case was against Smith and Attorney-General Chris Finlayson. Taylor and four other inmates challenged the voting ban imposed on New Zealand prisoners.

In July last year, the High Court issued a formal "declaration of inconsistency" with the Bill of Rights Act.

However, that does not mean Parliament has to scrap the ban.

The Government is considering the judgment, but has indicated the Bill of Rights has been taken into consideration when refusing votes to inmates.

Taylor's lawyer, Richard Francois, said at the time he intended to take the case to the United Nations and "point out this is a human rights violation".

Many nations, including Ireland, Spain and Switzerland, allow inmates full voting rights. Others, such as France and Germany, determine voting rights on the nature of an inmates' conviction.

In New Zealand, only prisoners serving terms of more than three years were prohibited from voting until 2010 when the law changed to cover all prisoners after a member's bill by National's Paul Quinn, who is no longer in Parliament.

Justice Paul Heath said his decision related only to the blanket ban and not the earlier ban.

"There are powerful arguments that the limitations on the prohibition contained in the original [Act] are justifiable in a free and democratic society."