CHOW WING KAN AND OTHERS v. CHAN MING KUI ROBERT

1995, No.MP3489

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS

_______________

_______________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

1. On 17th September 1995, an election for the Legislative Council was held. In the New Territories North West Constituency, there were two candidates : Dr Tang Siu-tong and Mr Wong Wai-yin. It was a close contest. Dr Tang lost by 57 votes. On 22nd September 1995, the returning officer for this constituency declared Mr Wong to be elected in a Notice of Result of Election published in the Gazette pursuant to the Boundary and Election Commission (Electoral Procedure) (Geographical Constituencies) Regulations, Cap.432. The 1st petitioner was a campaign manager of Dr Tang. Together with nine other electors, he lodged the present election petition to challenge the result of the election.

2. The petitioners are not legally represented. Since this petition involves some matters of public importance which may affect how future elections are to be held and how future registration of electors are to be conducted, I adjourned the case and sought the assistance of an amicus curiae. Mr Faulkner had kindly agreed to act as such on a pro bono basis. I am most indebted to him for his assistance. His submissions were fair and comprehensive and have made my task much easier.

The petitioners' case

3. It is the petitioners' case that quite a number of electors in that constituency had their names omitted from the register of electors. They turned up at their respective polling stations on election day, but were not allowed to vote. It was said that among them, there were at least 104 voters who had declared that they would support Dr Tang. However, in the bundle of documents placed before me, only 82 people had made statements to the effect that they were entitled to vote but were not allowed to do so on 17th September 1995. According to their statements, they said they had voted in the Municipal Council elections in March 1995 and should be entitled to vote in the 1995 Legco election.

4. It was also alleged by the petitioners that about 6,300 persons had been de-registered. Among them, 804 electors were barred from voting and another 1,449 could not vote at the polling stations. They complained that about 150,000 letters of inquiry were sent by the Registration and Electoral Office to electors registered in the previous register of electors and about 110,000 of them were subsequently de-registered because they did not respond to such letters. This, the petitioners said, threw the regularity, propriety and validity of the registration process into serious doubt. It was alleged that the omission of so many electors from the register showed that the registration process was conducted in a reckless or negligent manner in that the Registration and Electoral Office should have appreciated a risk of improper omission but have failed to do so or was aware of the risk and of the circumstances which made it unreasonable but did not do anything about it, or had breached the duty of care for ensuring that those electors should not be omitted improperly.

5. It was alleged by the petitioners that because of the improper de-registration of a large number of electors and the rejection of persons entitled to vote at the polling stations, there were material irregularities which would cast doubt on the election for the New Territories North West Constituency.

6. The relief sought by the petitioners are as follows :

1. to declare the election to be questioned has no legal effect;

2. to restore the voting right of those electors in the New Territories North West Constituency who had been debarred from voting in the 1995 Legislative Council elections;

3. to enquire into the procedures of the registration of voters;

4. to enquire into the procedures of polling;

5. to enquire into the procedures of counting; and

6. to enquire into the 1995 Legislative Council elections whether it was conducted in an open, fair, and reasonable manner.

Jurisdiction of the court

7. It is quite obvious that many of these reliefs sought are very wide and outside my jurisdiction. I am asked to make enquiries into a lot of matters. As far as I can understand, while some of them may be said to relate to the election, the real complaint is that the 1995 Final Register of electors was inaccurate because the Registration and Electoral Office was negligent and/or had applied the wrong procedure of registration. The question is whether I have the jurisdiction to deal with registration matters by way of an election petition.

Submissions

8. Counsel for the respondent quite naturally raised this as a preliminary point. He submitted that the court has no jurisdiction pursuant to Part VI of the Electoral Provisions Ordinance, Cap.367 to grant any of the reliefs sought by the petitioners. It was submitted that the law governing the entire process of election, including that relating to Legco elections, has been codified under Cap.367, Cap.432, the Legislative Council (Electoral Provisions) Ordinance, Cap.381 and the subsidiary legislation relating to these ordinances. Counsel argued that the law provides for a comprehensive and elaborate system for registration. There are provisions for the compilation of a provisional register and a final register. There are also provisions for challenging the registration. The decision of the revising officer upon an appeal to challenge the registration shall be final. In other words, the revising officer has the exclusive jurisdiction to handle any query relating to registration. An election petition, it was submitted, can only be relied on to question an election and not the registration.

9. The petitioners submitted that the registration procedure is part of the election process. Mr Chow, the leader of the petitioners, argued that s.4(b) of Cap.432 sets out the functions of the Commission including the conduct and supervision of an election and that subsection includes the supervision of the registration of electors. He also pointed out that in s.7(1)(a)(i), the Commission has the power to make regulations to provide for the registration of electors as regards an election. In the light of these two provisions, it was submitted that registration can be regarded as part of the election. The petitioners argued that the registration of electors can be challenged if its compilation is not in accordance with the law or there was fraud involved.

10. Mr Faulkner pointed out that s.16 of Cap.367 which deals with an appeal to a revising officer is expressed to be "subject to this Ordinance". He submitted that it can be argued that since the same Ordinance has also made provision for an election petition under s.30, the registration of electors may be challenged by way of an election petition.

Material irregularity relating to the election

11. An election may be questioned on the grounds set out in s.30(1) of Cap.367. Section 30(2) provides that this can only be done by an election petition presented under s.31. The ground relied upon by the petitioners is s.30(1)(a)(iii), namely :

"Any material irregularity relating to that election or poll or count in respect of that election." (my emphasis)

The question which arises is whether, assuming for the purpose of the preliminary point that the final register was not accurate, this is a material irregularity relating to the 1995 election.

Whether registration part of election process

12. It is clear from the relevant election legislation that not every person in Hong Kong is entitled to vote at an election. Only those whose names appear in the final register in force on the day of election can cast their votes. See s.6 of Cap.367. Section 6(2) goes even further and provides that a person who is registered in the final register shall not be excluded from voting on the ground that his name ought not to be in the final register. In other words, registration in the final register is the key to an entitlement to vote. If a person has his name in the final register (even though it may have been wrongly there), he can vote. If his name does not appear in it, he cannot.

13. However, registration is, in my view, not part of the election process for the purpose of challenging the result of the election by way of an election petition under s.30, Cap.367. Any irregularities in the registration process do not relate to the election as required by s.30(1)(a)(iii).

14. Under s.5A(1) of Cap.367, an ordinary election of the Legco shall be held in a specified year (1995) and each succeeding fourth year after or ordinary election is held. That is to say, not every year is an election year. On the other hand, the compilation of a final register is required to be done every year under s.14(1) of Cap.367. Hence, the annual registration process cannot be regarded as part of the election process which only occurs every 4 years. If the process of registration and compilation of the final register were to be regarded as part of an election process, it would mean that there would be an election every year and/or that the election continues year after year throughout the 4 year period. This cannot be right.

Commencement of election process

15. In an election year, the Governor would appoint a date for holding an ordinary election by giving notice in the Gazette. See s.5A(3) of Cap.367. For the geographical constituencies, Regulation 3(1) of the Boundary and Election Commission (Electoral Procedure) (Geographical Constituencies) Regulations, provides that after the Governor has given notice under s.5A(3) of Cap.367, the Chief Election Officer shall publish in the Gazette a notice giving particulars as required by those Regulations and inviting nominations. In my view, the election process in an ordinary election year commences by the Governor appointing a date for such election and giving notice of this in the Gazette, which is followed by the Chief Election Officer publishing the necessary notice giving particulars thereof and publicly inviting nominations. In this respect, I would respectfully agree with the comments of Litton V-P in Lau San Ching v. Liu Appollonia [1994] 3 HKC 122 at p.126C. The registration of electors which goes on annually is not part of the election process. It cannot be said to relate to the actual election process which takes place in an election year for the purpose of s.30 of Cap.367.

Sections 4 and 7 of Cap.432

16. In the widest sense, registration is of course a step preparatory to an election. Without registration, it is not possible to ascertain who is entitled to vote and who is not. But I do not think that s.4 and s.7 of Cap.432 can be relied on to suggest that registration is part of the election process. These two sections only confer upon the Commission certain powers to regulate not only the actual election and election process, but also to put in place a fair and open election system which clearly includes all steps and procedures which are preliminary and preparatory to any election which may be held.

Section 16 of Cap.367

17. It is true that s.16 begins with the words "subject to this Ordinance". However I do not think that it can be interpreted to mean that there are two alternative ways to challenge registration : one under s.16 by way of an appeal to the revising officer; and another under s.30 by way of an election petition.

18. As counsel for the respondent submitted, the Ordinance (Cap.367) provides for a comprehensive scheme for the registration of electors and for any challenge to be made to the register. Section 16 gives a right of appeal to a person against the decision of the registration officer. Such appeal may relate to any inaccuracy in the register or any step taken by the registration officer in the compilation of the register. The section also provides that such an appeal must go to the revising officer whose decision is final. The revising officer is the Registrar of the Supreme Court who is a judicial officer. The section also allows for legal representation and attendance before the revising officer. While the decision of the revising officer may arguably still be subject to a judicial review in a court of law, there is a limited scope for this relief which is governed by strict criteria. The clear intention of the legislation is to provide for a special procedure to handle registration matters.

19. In my view, the words "subject to this Ordinance" mean that if there are other provisions in the Ordinance relating to the same subject matter, then these other provisions shall prevail over s.16. But there does not seem to be any such other provision. If an election petition can be used to challenge the register, I should think that it would be quite easy for the Legislature to make clear provisions to this effect. On the contrary, s.30 makes it quite clear that an election petition is to be used only for the grounds stated in that section. None of these grounds are in any way related to registration. Hence, in my view, s.30 cannot be intended to be relied on to challenge the registration process after an election.

Section 37 of Cap.367

20. My views are also reinforced by s.37 of Cap.367. According to that section, at the conclusion of a trial of an election petition, the court shall make a determination in respect of the matters relating to s.37(1). These include a determination of any decision of the returning officer regarding the validity of any nomination and a determination as to whether any person was duly elected and certifying the determination in writing. There is no reference to a determination of the accuracy of the final register or the propriety of the registration process. I am aware that s.34(1) in the same Ordinance gives the court the same jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of an election petition and all proceedings thereon as it would have if such petition was an ordinary cause within its jurisdiction. This may seem to be quite a wide provision. However, any orders which the court may make upon an election petition must, in my view, relate to matters which arise from a determination under s.37. Reading s.34 and s.37 together, I take the view that the court when dealing with an election petition is obliged and empowered to make a determination only of the matters set out in s.37 and make any order relating thereto. It cannot deal with anything else.

21. For the reasons given above, I hold that any defect in the final register or registrarion process cannot be regarded as a material irregularity relating to the 1995 election within the meaning of s.30 of Cap.367 and that an election petition cannot be invoked to challenge the accuracy of the final register or registration process. Since this is in effect the purpose and objective of the election petition, this is sufficient to dispose of the present matter.

Complaint relating to polling

22. There is also a complaint that there were some people who were registered electors but were not allowed to vote on election day. Three persons whose names appeared on the final register turned up at the wrong polling station and were not allowed to vote. The petitioners alleged that this was wrong because a registered elector should not be deprived of his right to vote and should not be restricted to only one particular polling station. It was submitted that the Registration and Electoral Office should have sufficient ballot paper ready so that anyone who is a registered elector within the same geographical constituency should be allowed to vote at any polling station.

23. Regulation 34(1)(a) of the Boundary and Election Commission (Electoral Procedure) (Geographical Constituencies) Regulations provides that a person shall not vote at any polling station other than the one designated in respect of that part of the final register in which his particulars are registered. In other words, each registered elector would be designated a particular polling station and cannot go to any other polling station. The reason is obvious. Since this is an election according to the geographical constituencies, a person who is registered in respect of one constituency should not be allowed to vote in another constituency. Even within the same constituency, he is not allowed to vote at any polling station as he wishes. It is necessary for a good and orderly election to provide different polling stations within the same constituency. If a registered elector is permitted to vote at any polling station within the constituency, this may result in chaos. How many ballot papers should be provided at any particular polling station if electors are free to go to any polling station to cast their votes? What would happen if all registered electors go to one or only a few polling stations? This measure also prevents double or even multi-voting at different polling stations. In my view, therefore, it is necessary to make provision restricting registered electors to cast their votes only at designated polling stations.

24. These three persons had been registered and designated certain polling stations. They went to the wrong stations and was rightly refused to cast their votes. If they were keen to cast their votes, there is nothing to stop them from attending the correct polling station during election day.

25. There was one registered elector who, the petitioners alleged, was refused to cast his vote. This does not seem to be true. There is simply no record that he went to any polling station. If he had attended the correct polling station, there was no reason why he would not be allowed to vote. If he had gone to the wrong polling station and was not allowed to vote, there would have been a record of his attendance and the refusal. He would no doubt be referred to the correct polling station.

26. For these reasons, I am of the opinion that there was no material irregularity in resepct of the electors who were on the final register but were not allowed to vote. Even if an election petition was the correct procedure to take, and even if they were wrongly turned away, I do not think this would have caused any real difference in the result of the election in any event.

Registration of electors

27. According to the records produced by the Registration and Electoral Office, of the 82 people referred to by the petitioners, 77 did not have their names on the final register of electors for the Legco election. They were deleted or "omitted" from the 1995 Final Register.

28. In case I am wrong to hold that the petitioners cannot challenge the election by way of an election petition on the ground that there was an inaccurate final register, I shall now go on to consider whether there was any material irregularity because there was a defect in the registration process and these people had been wrongly de-registered.

29. Before examining this question, it is necessary to have an understanding of the present system which is provided in the relevant legislation.

Entitlement to be registered

30. Not every person in Hong Kong is entitled to vote at an election unless he is registered as an elector in the final register of electors in force on the date of election (s.6(1)). Not every person is entitled to be registered as an elector unless he is qualified. The requisit qualifications are :

(1) he must have ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for the seven years preceding the date of his application to be registered or he is a permanent resident in Hong Kong (s.8);

(2) he has to show that he is an ordinary resident in Hong Kong and that his declared residential address is his principal place of residence in Hong Kong, i.e. a dwelling place at which he resides and which constitutes his sole or main abode (s.8A);

(3) he must have attained 18 on or before 30th June in the year in which he applies to be registered (s.9); and

(4) he must have an identity card at the time of his application (s.10); and

(5) he must not be disqualified under s.11.

31. Not every person who is qualified to be registered is automatically an elector. He must either :

(1) be already on the existing final register, or

(2) apply for registration according to the provisions of Cap.367 (see s.7(1)).

In other words, he must not sit and wait to be registered. He must apply to be registered if he has not previously done so.

32. However, even if he is registered on the existing final register, he is not automatically entitled to be registered in any subsequent register. Under s.14, there is a compilation of the final register for each year. An elector's name may be removed from the register for a subsequent year if the registration officer has reason to believe that that person :

(1) has ceased to be ordinarily resident in Hong Kong; or

(2) has moved from the residential address entered against his name in the existing final register and the new address of his principal place of residence is not known to the registration officer (see s.7(2)).

33. It is therefore incumbent upon the person whose name appears in the existing final register but who has moved from his declared residential address to inform the registration officer of the new address of his principal place of residence.

34. It is clear that while the legislative provisions recognise the right of a qualified person to be registered as an elector and to vote, he has the obligation to take steps to exercise such right. It is his civic duty to co-operate with the registration officer. Of the 6.5 million people in Hong Kong, apart from those who are not qualified to be registered as electors, only approximately 2.5 million are registered electors. There are still a lot of people who are qualified but who do not show any interest in exercising their civic right. If, due to a lack of interest or for personal reasons, they fail to get themselves registered or having registered, fail to remain on the current register because of a change of their personal particulars or circumstances, they cannot be forced to do so under the present election laws. Equally, they cannot be heard to complain that they have been wrongly deprived of their right to be an elector.

Annual compilation of the final register

35. The Deputy Chief Electoral Officer explained how a final register is compiled each year. According to her, there are two kinds of registers published each year, a provisional register and a final register. The provisional register is required to be published before 22nd June and the final register before 8th August each year.

36. The entries in the provisional register of the present year are based on the entries in the final register published in the preceding year with additional entries based on new applications and corrected entries. The provisional register also contains a list of proposed omissions, being those entries in the final register published in the preceding year which are proposed to be omitted in the final register to be published in the present year.

37. The final register is compiled on the basis of the provisional register and information received following an up-dating exercise. The final register is valid upon its publication and remains in force until the publication of the next final register.

Omission from subsequent register

38. A elector's name appearing in the existing final register can be omitted from a subsequent register. This will be done if he is not entitled to be registered as an elector as a result of s.7(2). For this subsection to apply, there must be a reason for the registration officer to believe that that person has ceased to be ordinarily resident in Hong Kong or has moved from the residential address entered against his name in the existing final register and the new address of his principal place of residence in Hong Kong, if any, is not known to the registration officer. In resepct of the second situation, there are two separate but related conditions.

39. Under s.8A of Cap.367, a person who wishes to be registered as an elector must show that the residential address declared by him is his principal place of residence. Hence, the residential address entered in the existing final register must be his prinicpal place of residence. This is vital for the allocation of the appropriate geographical constituency. Each person can have a number of addresses but can only have one principal place of residence for the purpose of registration. If he has moved from that residence, he must inform the registration officer the address of his new principal place of residence. If he does not inform the registration officer or any authority, the registration officer would normally not be in a position to know that.

40. If an elector has two or more addresses, it is incumbent upon him to inform the registration officer which one is his principal place of residence. If the registration officer comes to know that that person has a new or additional address and makes enquiry of him, I think he is not entitled to remain silent and let the registration officer guess which one it is or treat the previous one as being still his principal place of residence. Afterall, under s.8A, he has the duty to provide his principal place of residence to the registration officer.

Enquiries by registration officer

41. Under Regulation 8(1) of the Boundary and Election Commission (Registration of Electors) (Geographical Constituencies) Regulations, Cap.432, the registration officer is conferred with the power to make such enquiries as he thinks fit for the purpose of ascertaining whether the address contained under Regulation (4)(1)(b)(ii) in relation to an entry in respect of a person is no longer the address of that person's principal place of residence. He is strictly speaking not duty bound to do so. However, if he does not, it would be difficult for him to say, in the absence of any other evidence, that he has a reason to believe that a person falls within s.7(2)(a) or (b). If he proceeds to omit that person's name from the register of electors, he would be depriving that person of his entitlement to be registered as an elector and therefore his right to vote. In my view, a registration officer can only be said to have a reason for such a belief if he has received direct information on either of the matters in s.7(2)(a) or (b) or has, after having conducted some enquiry, come to possess of facts which enable him to draw the conclusion that either subsection (2)(a) and/or (b) applies.

42. As to the manner in which he may make enquiries, Regulation 8(2) gives him some guidance. It provides as follows :

"An enquiry under subsection (1) -

(a) shall be made in writing and sent by post; and

(b) may be made -

(i) of a person whose name appears in an existing final register, only on or before 1 June in any year; and

(ii) of any other source the registration officer considers appropriate, at any time." (my emphasis)

43. It would seem therefore that while he is free to conduct whatever enquiries he likes, he is under an obligation to make his enquiry in writing and by post.

Final Register for the 1995 Legco election

44. One of the points argued by the petitioners was that a certain number of persons who were not allowed to cast their votes in the Legislative Council Election had in fact voted in the previous District Board and the Municipal Council Elections and that it could be inferred that their names were wrongly omitted in the final register. I do not think this can be sustained.

45. The District Board Election was held on 18th September 1994 and the Municipal Council Election was held on 5th March 1995. The relevant final register for these elections was the 1994 Final Register. According to the Ordinance, a final register has to be compiled and published each year by 8th August of each year. Hence, the final register of 1995 was to be published in August 1995. Since the 1995 Legco Election was to take place on 17th September, it was not the 1994 Final Register but the 1995 Final Register which was the relevant register. It is therefore not surprising that after the "up-dating" exercise in 1995, there are people with names appearing on the 1994 Final Register who are not on the 1995 Final Register.

The "up-dating" exercise

46. The Deputy Chief Electoral Officer in her affirmation set out in detail the procedure for the compilation of the 1995 Final Register for the Legislative Council Election. For the present purpose, I do not think it is necessary to go at length into the procedure, except the procedure adopted for making enquiries with regard to the proposed omission of names from the existing final register in the 1995 Final Register.

The basis

47. According to the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, the procedure adopted by the Registration and Electoral Office was this. They would take the existing final register, in this case, the 1994 Final Register, as the basis or starting point. Information would then be obtained from various sources such as the Registration of Persons Office, the Housing Department and the Housing Society. These are the offices or departments which would be in a position to know of any change of address of the residents in Hong Kong. Information would also be obtained from the Birth and Death Registry on those electors who have died during the meantime.

The matching exercise

48. Having obtained such information from these offices and departments, there would then be a "matching exercise". This is done by the Information Technology Services Department. Data of the General Electoral Roll, i.e. the voter register, are compared with the records maintained by and information obtained from these other offices and departments.

49. This matching exercise is to find out how many people from the 1994 Final Register would have new, different or additional addresses from those already in the register and how many had passed away. It is aimed at updating the principal place of residence of an elector so that he can be placed in the correct geographical constituency.

50. If it has come to the knowledge of the registration officer that a particular elector in the existing final register has more than one address or has an address different from the one appearing in the exisitng final register, the registration officer would take the necessary steps or make enquiries.

Follow-up action

51. For the information obtained from the Housing Department and the Housing Society, the Registration and Electoral Office would correct the addresses of the electors in respect of whom different addresses are supplied. The office would re-allocate these people to the appropriate geographical constituencies based on these addresses. The reason is that these housing records are considered to be more accurate and authoritative as tenants in estates run by the Housing Department and the Housing Society are required to live in their housing flats which must therefore be their principal places of residence. It is therefore assumed that they have changed their principal places of residence since the compilation of the last final register.

52. For electors who have their geographical constituencies changed because of a change of principal places of residence, they would be notified of the re-allocation by notices which were sent to the addresses shown in the records of the Housing Department or the Housing Society. They can raise objection to the alteration made by the Registration and Electoral Office after the publication of the provisional register.

53. In respect of information obtained from the Registration of Persons Office, the Registration and Electoral Office would send a letter together with a voter registration form to each of the electors concerned at the more recent addresses as revealed in the records of the Registration of Persons Office. The letter requests the elector to report to the Registration and Electoral Office of his current address, that is, to state what his present principal place of residence is, whether it is the address given in the existing final register, or the new or different or additional address given by the Registration of Persons Office or any other address. Upon receipt of an elector's completed registration form reporting a change of address, the Registration and Electoral Office would up-date the elector's electoral record and re-allocate him to an appropriate geographical constituency based on the address supplied by the elector on the registration form. After that, a notice of such correction would be sent to the elector. The provisional register containing such correction is also published in the Gazette.

54. For those cases where the Registration and Electoral Office's letters are returned undelivered or where no response is received as a result of the letters of enquiry to the new addresses, the details of such electors would be vetted.

Vetting exercise

55. The vetting exercise consists of these. First, the electoral records identified as possibly containing an out-dated address are first checked against the electoral and registration system to see whether there is any up-dating during the meantime. This is done to ensure that cases with the addresses up-dated more recently during the meantime would be excluded from the vetting exercise.

56. Second, upon completion of this report checking, the Registration and Electoral Office would do a control exercise with the Information Technology Services Department whereby a standard letter of enquiry would be sent by post to each of the electors in the control report at his address on the final register of the previous year, seeking confirmation of his up-to-date address and notifying him that his name would be omitted from the 1995 Final Register if no response is received from him within one month from the date of the enquiry letter.

57. Third, two letters of enquiry would be sent by post to each of these electors, one to his address shown in the existing final register and one to his new address obtained from the Registration of Persons Office. If these letters are returned undelivered or no response is received after one month, they would be included in the 1ist of proposed omissions which means that their names would be omitted from the 1995 Final Register.

58. In other words, the Registration and Electoral Office would send two letters, one to the existing address and one to the up-dated address.

Other enquiries

59. Even if there is no response from enquiry within the one month time limit, an elector would also be able to provide information before 1st June 1995, the deadline for registration, to have his addresses up-dated or confirmed. The Registration and Electoral Office would also match the particulars of electors who would be omitted with the particulars on the lists of employees provided by employers in connection with the voter registration for the nine new functional constituencies. They would be allowed to remain in the 1995 Final Register but with their business addresses as their correspondence addresses. Their names would not be omitted from the final register because they can still be traced.

60. The legislation requires the registration officer to make his enquiries in writing and by post. That is the procedure adopted. Having considered the legislative framework for registration of electors and compilation of the final register, I am satisfied that the procedure adopted by the Registration and Electoral Office has complied with the legislation and are also reasonable in the circumstances.

61. It is the civic duty of a resident, if he wishes to take part in the election, to get himself registered and to remain on the register for the particular election. This duty includes, in my view, an obligation to notify the Registration and Electoral Office of his up-dated address and/or particulars.

The "complainants" in this case

62. Of the 82 persons put forward by the petitioners, 77 of them had their names omitted in the 1995 Final Register. According to the record of the Registration and Electoral Office, in each of these cases, where the source of information was undelivered election mail, a letter of enquiry was sent to the individual stating that the registration officer proposed to omit him from the 1995 Final Register if no response was received from him within one month. Where the source of information was from the Registration of Persons Office, two letters were sent to the individual, one at his address as shown in the 1994 Final Register and the other to the address obtained from the Registration of Persons Office. The letters of enquiry sent to these persons were either returned undelivered or there was no response received within the one month deadline. According to the records, their names were omitted.

63. Having considered all the evidence before me, I do not think the Registration and Electoral Office should be blamed for having these people's names omitted from the 1995 Final Register.

64. Even if an election petition is an appropriate way of challenging the final register, I take the view that there is no fault on the part of the Registration and Electoral Office in having the names of these people omitted in the 1995 Final Register. If they want their names to be restored, they should either appeal to the revising officer or re-apply for registration in the next final register.

Conclusion

65. For the reasons which I have given, I am of the opinion that there was no material irregularity as alleged by the petitioners. This petition must be dismissed. I would give liberty to the parties to apply on the question of costs.