High Court delivers verdict in Papatoetoe electoral fraud case
-Feb-20-2026-01-03-13-4106-AM.jpg?width=740&height=400&name=Break%20The%20Silence%20NZ%20Campaign%20Supports%20Asians%20Facing%20Gambling%20Harm%20(3)-Feb-20-2026-01-03-13-4106-AM.jpg)
A High Court of New Zealand judgment has dismissed applications for judicial review filed by the winning candidates of the 2025 Papatoetoe elections, ruling that the court cannot reconsider key factual findings due to limits set under the Local Electoral Act 2001.
The decision, delivered by Justice Jane Anderson on 5 March 2026, declined the orders sought by the applicants and dismissed both the applications for judicial review and requests for declarations.
The court noted that Section 103 of the Local Electoral Act prevents the removal or review of an election petition determination or order to the High Court by “any procedure”.
As a result, the court held it could not review matters connected to the factual inquiry undertaken by the original judge. These included the judge’s inference that misuse of voting papers may have extended beyond the specific instances identified and could have materially affected the election result.
The court also rejected arguments that the judge should have conducted further inquiry into the facts, including seeking information from the applicants who were aware of the petition but had not filed a notice of intention to oppose it.
Other claims raised by the applicants (Papatoetoe Ōtara Action Team — Kunal Bhalla, Sandeep Saini, Paramjeet Singh and Kushma Nair) including alleged errors in the standard of proof, misconstruction of jurisdiction, and breaches of natural justice, were considered but ultimately not established.
The applicants had also sought declarations under the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 as alternative relief if judicial review was barred. However, the judge declined to issue such declarations, finding they would not provide useful guidance.
The court also noted that the original decision did not make findings implicating the applicants in electoral fraud.
The order also referred to social media comments portraying the District Court judgment as “immigrant corruption” and concluding “Indian candidates masterminded fraudulent votes”, describing them as a misleading and improper report of the decision.
“Mr Hausia does not allege – nor did the Judge find – that the applicants had any involvement in the misuse of voting papers identified in the Decision.”
“The applicants have strongly condemned that conduct, whether it arose through a misguided attempt to assist them or through other mischief.”
Police enquiries into the electoral fraud remain ongoing.
The High Court also noted that the applicants’ conduct is “not impugned at all by the Decision.”
“Nor is there any comment on the identity of those who may be associated with the misuse of voting papers. The Decision emphasises that this is by persons unknown.”
The ruling follows the final hearing on 17 February 2026, when Justice Anderson reserved judgment on whether the court would consider a judicial review of a lower court order that voided last year’s Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board election.
During the hearing at the High Court in Auckland, counsel for the applicants argued that the increase in voter turnout alone did not prove wrongdoing. The four winning candidates from the Papatoetoe Ōtara Action Team — Kunal Bhalla, Sandeep Saini, Paramjeet Singh and Kushma Nair — were also present in court.
Their counsel argued that more voters had enrolled in Papatoetoe than in any other electorate across Auckland.
Counsel for the petitioner said there was no dispute that 79 ballot papers were misused but challenged the District Court’s decision to go beyond that figure, arguing there was insufficient evidence to treat it as the “tip of the iceberg” or to conclude that widespread fraud had occurred.
Citing the Vote On The Go programme run by Auckland Council — which has since been removed for the upcoming by-election — the counsel noted that communities and first-time candidates used the initiative to help residents enrol and reduce barriers to participation.
The petitioner also argued that the Papatoetoe Ōtara Action Team did not appear in the District Court proceedings in December because due process had not been followed.
Simon Mitchell, representing Labour candidates, told the court that the 2025 election voting had irregularities. He disagreed with suggestions that the election outcome was the result of campaign efforts by the candidates or demographic shifts in the electorate, arguing that the irregular special votes recorded in Papatoetoe stood out as an anomaly compared with the rest of Auckland.
A High Court of New Zealand judgment has dismissed applications for judicial review filed by the winning candidates of the 2025 Papatoetoe elections, ruling that the court cannot reconsider key factual findings due to limits set under the Local Electoral Act 2001.
The decision, delivered by Justice...
A High Court of New Zealand judgment has dismissed applications for judicial review filed by the winning candidates of the 2025 Papatoetoe elections, ruling that the court cannot reconsider key factual findings due to limits set under the Local Electoral Act 2001.
The decision, delivered by Justice Jane Anderson on 5 March 2026, declined the orders sought by the applicants and dismissed both the applications for judicial review and requests for declarations.
The court noted that Section 103 of the Local Electoral Act prevents the removal or review of an election petition determination or order to the High Court by “any procedure”.
As a result, the court held it could not review matters connected to the factual inquiry undertaken by the original judge. These included the judge’s inference that misuse of voting papers may have extended beyond the specific instances identified and could have materially affected the election result.
The court also rejected arguments that the judge should have conducted further inquiry into the facts, including seeking information from the applicants who were aware of the petition but had not filed a notice of intention to oppose it.
Other claims raised by the applicants (Papatoetoe Ōtara Action Team — Kunal Bhalla, Sandeep Saini, Paramjeet Singh and Kushma Nair) including alleged errors in the standard of proof, misconstruction of jurisdiction, and breaches of natural justice, were considered but ultimately not established.
The applicants had also sought declarations under the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 as alternative relief if judicial review was barred. However, the judge declined to issue such declarations, finding they would not provide useful guidance.
The court also noted that the original decision did not make findings implicating the applicants in electoral fraud.
The order also referred to social media comments portraying the District Court judgment as “immigrant corruption” and concluding “Indian candidates masterminded fraudulent votes”, describing them as a misleading and improper report of the decision.
“Mr Hausia does not allege – nor did the Judge find – that the applicants had any involvement in the misuse of voting papers identified in the Decision.”
“The applicants have strongly condemned that conduct, whether it arose through a misguided attempt to assist them or through other mischief.”
Police enquiries into the electoral fraud remain ongoing.
The High Court also noted that the applicants’ conduct is “not impugned at all by the Decision.”
“Nor is there any comment on the identity of those who may be associated with the misuse of voting papers. The Decision emphasises that this is by persons unknown.”
The ruling follows the final hearing on 17 February 2026, when Justice Anderson reserved judgment on whether the court would consider a judicial review of a lower court order that voided last year’s Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board election.
During the hearing at the High Court in Auckland, counsel for the applicants argued that the increase in voter turnout alone did not prove wrongdoing. The four winning candidates from the Papatoetoe Ōtara Action Team — Kunal Bhalla, Sandeep Saini, Paramjeet Singh and Kushma Nair — were also present in court.
Their counsel argued that more voters had enrolled in Papatoetoe than in any other electorate across Auckland.
Counsel for the petitioner said there was no dispute that 79 ballot papers were misused but challenged the District Court’s decision to go beyond that figure, arguing there was insufficient evidence to treat it as the “tip of the iceberg” or to conclude that widespread fraud had occurred.
Citing the Vote On The Go programme run by Auckland Council — which has since been removed for the upcoming by-election — the counsel noted that communities and first-time candidates used the initiative to help residents enrol and reduce barriers to participation.
The petitioner also argued that the Papatoetoe Ōtara Action Team did not appear in the District Court proceedings in December because due process had not been followed.
Simon Mitchell, representing Labour candidates, told the court that the 2025 election voting had irregularities. He disagreed with suggestions that the election outcome was the result of campaign efforts by the candidates or demographic shifts in the electorate, arguing that the irregular special votes recorded in Papatoetoe stood out as an anomaly compared with the rest of Auckland.
Related Posts
ISSUE
Leave a Comment