Application for recount — local body elections — Single Transferable Vote (STV) — "reasonable grounds to believe" — "reasonable grounds to suspect" — Local Electoral Act 2001, ss 90 & 92 — Search and Surveillance Act 2013, s 6 — Local Electoral Regulations 2001, sch 1A cl 37 — Butler v Jordan [2011] DCR 399 — Kelliher v Jordan [2017] DCR 44 — R v White [1988] 1 NZLR 264 — R v Leitch [1988] 1 NZLR 42 — Lewers v Queenstown Lakes District Council [2019] NZDC 20986 — Lester v Lampp and Foster [2019] NZDC 22157 — Hicks v Gore District Council and Bell [2022] NZDC 21348 — Schaaf v Police [2019] NZHC 176 — R v Williams [2007] NZCA 52, [2007] 3 NZLR 207 — Police v Anderson [1972] NZLR 233 — R v Sanders [1994] 3 NZLR 450, (1994) 12 CRNZ 12 (CA) — Seven Seas Publishing Pty Ltd v Sullivan [1968] NZLR 663 — R v Laugalis (1993) 10 CRNZ 350. The applicant sought a recount of votes in her race in the 2022 local body elections. The race was conducted under the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, and the applicant had been excluded in the second iteration. In bringing the application, she argued that there may have been an error during vote counting and that some of the votes for another candidate possibly should have been transferred to her when the other candidate was eliminated. The applicant formed this belief from an analysis of voting patterns. The respondent had provided reports in response to the application. He submitted that the applicant's arguments were speculative and not supported by the evidence. The Court's task was to determine whether the applicant had reasonable grounds to believe that the election results were incorrect and that a recount might lead to her being elected. The Court found no direct evidence that the votes had been miscounted. The applicant's arguments were based on misconceptions as to how votes were counted under the STV system. The applicant had shown no reasonable grounds to believe that the results were incorrect. The application was declined. Judgment Date: 22 November 2022.