Limitations on Disenfranchisement
The cause of disfranchising a citizen, freeman, or burgess, ought to be grounded upon an Act which is against the duty of a citizen or burgess, and against the public good of the city or borough whereof, and c. and against his oath, which he took when he was sworn a freeman of the city or borough: but words of contempt, or contra bonos mores, although against the chief officer or his brethren, are not good causes of disfranchisement, nor are endeavours, and c. to do a thing against the duty or trust of his freedom.
No freeman of any corporation can be disfranchised by the corporation, unless they have authority to do it, either by the express words of the charter, or by prescription : if they have no such authority, the party ought to be convicted by course of law before he can be removed.
A removal, without hearing the party removed, is bad.
If a party is disfranchised and a writ to restore the party, or signify the cause, and c. is awarded in KB, if a sufficient cause of removal is entitled, but which is false, the Court cannot award a writ to restore the party; but the party grieved may have a special action on the case, and upon obtaining judgment a writ of restitution shall be awarded.
The return of disfranchisement ought to be certain.
[1572] EngR 202, (1572-1616) 11 Co Rep 93, (1572) 77 ER 1271
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Shoesmith, Regina (on The Application of) v OFSTED and Others CA 27-May-2011
The claimant appealed against dismissal of her claim. She had been head of Child Services at Haringey. After the notorious violent death of Baby P, the Secretary of State called for an inquiry under the Act. He then removed her as director. She . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Natural Justice, Elections
Leading Case
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.432168