Dumble v Electoral Registration Officer for the Borders 1980 SLT (Sh Ct) 60
- Summarise and explain briefly the continuing significance of the above case in relation to the issue of entitlement to vote. The legislation argued over in this case has since been reformed but assess the relevance of its interpretation to the equivalent provisions of the 1983 Act.
- Apply the legal interpretation illustrated authoritatively in the above case to solving the fictional problem below.
- Restrict each part of your answer to a maximum of 500 words and a minimum of 350.
To understand the significance and relevance to the provisions of the 1983 act it must be noted what the act states:
The Representation of the People Act 1949, s. 1 (as amended by the Representation of the People Act 1969, Sched. 2, para 1 enacts inter alia:
“(1) … the persons entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency shall be those who— (a) are resident there on the qualifying date”.
In the case of Dumble v Electoral Registration Officer for the Borders 1980 SLT (Sh Ct) 60
The name Malone appeared in the register of electors for a certain political party in that constituency and had used the address he had in that constituency as a base for the political career he had. Thomas Dumble had appealed from a decision of the electoral registration officer outlawing an opposition to the existence of the name Gerald Malone, located at the address in the register of elections – Kirkland’s Lodge, Ancrum. In the constituency of Roxburgh, Selkirk and Pebbles. The objection arose from Mr Malone resided at 17 Mirrlees drive, Glasgow, not Kirkland’s lodge on the qualifying date. Mr M is the parliamentary elector for this constituency and the agent for liberal candidate as he resides at 2 Gala lane, Galashiels.
It is fair to say that Mr Malone is a member of the political party he is a prospective parliamentary candidate and used the address due to his political career however the principle address was located in another constituency which would have been more convenient for his profession. It was held, that the appeal was refused on the grounds that the court considered the fact that there was a possibility of a person having a qualifying address in multiple constituencies, also having two careers which are very important to him which required separate constituencies should appear in separate constituencies; The appeal was rejected.
The parliament have foreseen events like this as mentioned in the case above this is why case is significant in regards to the issue of voting as there are many people who live in more than one home due to personal reasons or work commitments. It was decided that Mr Malone qualifies for registration at both addresses and the fact he may have to travel is impartial to the decision.