| Citation | 1703) 92 ER 126 |
| Date of Judgment | 1 JAN ,1703 |
| Court | Court of Queen’s Bench |
| Case Type | Civil Appeal (Torts) |
| Petitioner | ASHBY, resident of Aylesbury. |
| Respondent | WHITE, (a constable ) |
| Bench | Lord John Holt CJ |
| Referred | Injuria sine damnum means Ubi jus ibi remedium means |
FACTS OF THE CASE
- Mr Ashby resident of Aylesbury, was prevented from voting at an election by the misfeasance of a constable, Mr White, prevented Ashby from exercising his ‘Right to Vote’, stating that Ashby wasn’t a settled resident on the apparent pretext that he was not a settled inhabitant.
- At the time, the case attracted considerable national interest, and debates in Parliament. It was later known as the Aylesbury election case.
- Ashby refused to accept it and said he was a registered voter. Ashby sued Mr. White for the claim of damages.
In the House of Lords, it attracted the interest of Peter King, 1st Baron King who spoke and maintained the right of electors to have a remedy at common law for denial of their votes, against Tory insistence on the privileges of the House of Commons. .
ISSUE :
- The primary legal issue was the alleged wrongful denial of Matthew Ashby’s right to vote in the parliamentary election for Aylesbury in 1701, raising questions about the protection of individual voting rights and the duty of election officials to facilitate the exercise of this right ?
- Was there a legal duty incumbent upon Thomas White to ensure that qualified voters were able to exercise their franchise without obstruction, and did he breach this duty by denying Matthew Ashby the opportunity to vote?
# ARGUMENTS ON The Petitioner’s Side
- Infringement of Fundamental Right to Vote:
Matthew Ashby’s right to vote is a fundamental democratic right, protected under international human rights law. Denying him this right constitutes a clear infringement, as established in Hirst v. United Kingdom. Upholding this right is essential for a functioning democracy.
In Hirst v. United Kingdom [2005] ECHR 681, the European Court of Human Rights emphasized the fundamental nature of the right to vote.
- Damages as a Remedy for Violation of Rights:
If a person’s right is violated, they must have a means to vindicate and maintain it, including a remedy if they are wronged, as established in Khan v. United Kingdom. Awarding damages to Matthew Ashby is a just and necessary remedy for the violation of his fundamental right to vote.
In Khan v. United Kingdom [2000] ECHR 853, the European Court of Human Rights affirmed that an effective remedy, including compensation, must be available for violations of human rights. - Duty of Returning Officer to Facilitate Voting: Thomas White, as the returning officer, had a legal duty to ensure that qualified voters like Matthew Ashby were able to exercise their franchise without impediment, as established in R (Lock) v. Secretary of State for Justice. White’s refusal to allow Ashby to vote breached this duty.
R (Lock) v. Secretary of State for Justice [2007] UKHL 37 reaffirmed that public authorities have a duty to act in a manner consistent with the protection of Convention rights.
# ARGUMENTS ON The Respondent’s Side
- Parliamentary Privilege and Separation of Powers:
Upholding the defendant’s actions aligns with the principle of parliamentary privilege and the separation of powers. It emphasizes that the judiciary should exercise restraint in cases involving political processes.
In R (on the application of Jackson) v. Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, the House of Lords emphasized the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, underscoring the exclusive authority of Parliament in certain constitutional matters. - Discretion of Election Officials:
Returning officers and election officials often have a degree of discretion in carrying out their duties, including the interpretation of election laws and regulations. The case of Hodges v. Webb [1949] 1 All ER 460 affirmed the discretion of election officials in interpreting and applying election laws. - Promotion of Civic Responsibility: Affirming the defendant’s actions can be viewed as promoting civic responsibility among voters, in line with the principles outlined in Thompson v. Davenport. It underscores the importance of voters being aware of their rights and responsibilities in the electoral process. These arguments are presented in a hypothetical scenario and are for illustrative purposes only. They do not reflect the actual outcome of the historic Ashby v. White case.
JUDGEMENT
1. Lower Court , decreed in favor of the plaintiff and awarded compensation of 5 pounds.
2. Queen’s Court , set aside the decision of the lower court and favoured the defendant. The argument submitted was that the Commons alone had the power to determine election cases, not the courts.
3. House of Lords , upheld the Lower Court’s decision. The court stated that injuria sine damnum will apply in this case, as there was a violation of legal rights, even though there were no physical damages done to the plaintiff. And as per ubi jus ibi remedium, in violation of legal rights, a remedy must be given.
In the words of Lord John Holt CJ:
“If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise or enjoyment of it, and, indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy; for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal…”
The judgment in Ashby v. White was delivered in 1703 by Chief Justice Sir John Holt in the Court of Queen’s Bench. The case is known for establishing an important precedent in English law regarding the protection of individual rights, particularly in the context of voting.
Key Points in the Judgment:
Recognition of a Legal Right: Chief Justice Holt affirmed that Matthew Ashby had a clear and lawful right to vote as a qualified voter in the parliamentary election for Aylesbury in 1701.
Unlawful Interference: The Court held that Thomas White, acting as the returning officer, unlawfully interfered with Ashby’s right to vote by refusing to allow him to cast his ballot without providing any valid justification.
Duty of Returning Officer: Chief Justice Holt emphasized that it was the duty of a returning officer, such as Thomas White, to ensure that qualified voters were able to exercise their franchise without any hindrance.
Parliamentary Privilege Clarification: While affirming Ashby’s right to sue and receive compensation for the infringement of his voting right, Chief Justice Holt also acknowledged that certain matters related to parliamentary proceedings and elections fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament. This meant that some issues were not subject to judicial review.
Distinction from Political Matters: The judgment clarified that while the Court would not interfere in political matters or decisions made by Parliament, it was well within its jurisdiction to protect and uphold the legal rights of individuals, including the right to vote.
SIMILAR INDIAN CASE:
Mr. Sumit vs GNCTD, 2015–(slightly differ from Ashby vs White as in this case Sumit’s name was struck off from voters list)
Facts:
Plaintiff already exercised his right to vote earlier, but his name was struck off the voters’ list without prior notice.
Received 10000/- in damages (Compensatory Jurisprudence).
Ratio: The right to vote is a Constitutional Right (Article 326) and the Right to vote is a statutory right (s. 62(1) of ROPA 1951).
REFERENCES
https://www.legalauthority.in/
This Article is written by Riyansh Gupta of the University Institute of Legal Studies, an intern at Legal Vidhiya.
