Attorney-General v Taylor: A Constitutional Milestone?

In Attorney-General v Taylor, the Supreme Court held that courts have the jurisdiction to issue declarations of incompatibility when legislation is found to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This article first offers explanations for why the Court chose this case, arising out of the disenfranchisement of prisoners, to finally establish the jurisdiction to issue declarations of incompatibility. It then discusses the ramifications of the establishment of this jurisdiction for the legal system, as well as for understandings of the Bill of Rights Act in the comparative constitutional law literature.