Post Office showing when the letters with the notices were actually registered that is the proper stamp. That is the date on which the notices were registered. [70] The consequence of failure to give proper notice of a hearing was considered by Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard. He held that proceedings which ought to have been served but did not come to the notice of a defendant are a nullity. This is the normal result of the failure to comply with the requirements of natural justice. I am satisfied that the learned trial judge was entitled to have come to the conclusion that failure to comply with Regulation 23 and to notify the voters of the date of their hearing rendered the decisions of no legal effect and the disenfranchised voters were never lawfully removed from the list. Penalties which are issued following upon proceedings which the person adversely affected had no adequate notice of are fundamentally flawed and cannot stand. The removal of the names of persons pursuant to such objections is invalid and those persons who suffered this fate were unlawfully disenfranchised. Failure to give notice of the deregistration of voters [71] The 203 voters were de-registered as a result of objections made under section 39(1)(b). The Regulations flesh out the procedure to be followed in processing and determining such objections. Not only can the January List be affected by deletions, there may also be additions in respect of newly registered or voters. The Act accordingly provides for the publication by the Chief Registration Officer of Revised Monthly Lists. It is not disputed that the Chief Registration Officer did not publish the Revised Monthly Lists as required by section 46 of the Act. The evidence before the learned trial judge was that the Chief Registration Officer published the January List and thereby confirmed and acknowledged the right of each person named therein to vote at the next elections to be held in Nevis unless their names were properly deleted. [72] When the Registration Officer has determined all objections to the registration of persons whose names appear on the Register she is required to transmit a record of her determinations to the Chief Registration Officer. The purpose of this
Post Office showing when the letters with the notices were actually registered that is the proper stamp. That is the date on which the notices were registered. [70] The consequence of failure to give proper notice of a hearing was considered by Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard. He held that proceedings which ought to have been served but did not come to the notice of a defendant are a nullity. This is the normal result of the failure to comply with the requirements of natural justice. I am satisfied that the learned trial judge was entitled to have come to the conclusion that failure to comply with Regulation 23 and to notify the voters of the date of their hearing rendered the decisions of no legal effect and the disenfranchised voters were never lawfully removed from the list. Penalties which are issued following upon proceedings which the person adversely affected had no adequate notice of are fundamentally flawed and cannot stand. The removal of the names of persons pursuant to such objections is invalid and those persons who suffered this fate were unlawfully disenfranchised. Failure to give notice of the deregistration of voters [71] The 203 voters were de-registered as a result of objections made under section 39(1)(b). The Regulations flesh out the procedure to be followed in processing and determining such objections. Not only can the January List be affected by deletions, there may also be additions in respect of newly registered or voters. The Act accordingly provides for the publication by the Chief Registration Officer of Revised Monthly Lists. It is not disputed that the Chief Registration Officer did not publish the Revised Monthly Lists as required by section 46 of the Act. The evidence before the learned trial judge was that the Chief Registration Officer published the January List and thereby confirmed and acknowledged the right of each person named therein to vote at the next elections to be held in Nevis unless their names were properly deleted. [72] When the Registration Officer has determined all objections to the registration of persons whose names appear on the Register she is required to transmit a record of her determinations to the Chief Registration Officer. The purpose of this