The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from the Crown over whether a ban on prisoners voting is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act.
In 2010 Parliament passed a law banning all prisoners from voting in elections. That was a step up from the previous legislation which allowed prisoners to vote if they were serving terms of less than three years.
But in 2015, notorious career criminal and self-styled "jailhouse lawyer" Arthur William Taylor fought the case in the High Court, along with four inmates from Christchurch Women's Prison.
The High Court did not overturn the ban, but did declare the ban was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act because it infringed on the rights of New Zealand citizens to vote.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
Under New Zealand legislation, the High Court's declaration does not force Parliament to remove the ban - it merely highlights an inconsistency in the law.
But the Crown tried to have the decision overturned in the Court of Appeal. Its case was dismissed in May this year.
However the Crown has now won the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, where it is arguing the courts do not have the jurisdiction to declare acts of Parliament inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.
The Human Rights Commission has indicated it plans to appear as an "intervenor" in the Supreme Court appeal.
Earlier this month the Court of Appeal dismissed two appeals from Taylor and other inmates that said the ban on voting breached prisoners' human rights and discriminated against Maori.
Taylor is serving a 17-year sentence in Auckland Prison at Paremoremo on a variety of drug and violence charges. He has spent almost 40 years behind bars.
During that time he has taken a number of legal actions against the Department of Corrections, including fighting a ban on smoking in jail.