header-logo header-logo

02 December 2010
Issue: 7444 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

Human rights—Prisoners—Right to vote

Greens and another v United Kingdom [2010] ECHR 60041/08, [2010] All ER (D) 280 (Nov) European Court of Human Rights

Judge Garlicki (President), Judges Bratza, Mijovic, Bjorgvinsson, Bianku, Poalelungi and De Gaetano, and L Early (Section Registrar), 23 Nov 2010

The United Kingdom must remove the blanket ban on prisoner voting in s 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (RPA 1983) and s 8 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 (EPE 2002) within six months.
At the material times, the applicants were all serving prisoners. The Electoral Registration Officer refused their applications for registration to vote on the basis of their status as convicted persons detained in a penal institution.

Section 3 of RPA 1983 imposed a blanket restriction on all convicted prisoners in detention irrespective of the length of their sentence and irrespective of the nature or gravity of their offence and their individual circumstances. The blanket restriction introduced by s 3 of RPA 1983 was extended to elections to the European Parliament by s 8 of EPE 2002.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
The Environment Agency can prosecute offences beyond environmental legislation where proceedings support its statutory functions, the Divisional Court has confirmed
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll