header-logo header-logo

Votes for prisoners?

10 February 2015
Issue: 7640 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Prisoners’ human rights were breached by the blanket ban on voting in the 2010 General Election, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

The court ruled there had been a breach of Art 3 of Protocol No 1, on the right to free elections, in McHugh and others v UK (App No 51987/08). However, the court did not award costs or compensation.

Sean Lumber of Leigh Day & Co, who acted for 554 of the 1,015 prisoners who brought the case, said: “Frankly, this judgment comes as no surprise given that the Court has already found this ban to be unlawful in a succession of judgments over the last decade.

“However, given the UK government’s stubborn refusal to take action to remedy the breach, as it is legally required to do, and as a consequence of which it is almost certain that prisoners be unable to vote in the forthcoming May 2015 General Election, we are disappointed that the Court has not seen fit to award our clients compensation for breaching their rights.”

The ECtHR first declared the blanket ban unlawful in 2005, in Hirst (No 2) v UK (App No 74025/01). It has confirmed this decision in further judgments, including Firth and others v UK (App No 47784/09) in August 2014.

The government has published a draft Bill exploring a range of options. In December 2013, a Parliamentary Select Committee recommended that the government introduce legislation to give prisoners serving sentences of 12 months or less the vote in the last six months of their sentence.  

However, the government has said it will take no action before the 2015 General Election since it is “clear that such legislation would not have a realistic prospect of passing through the current Parliament”. The Committee of Ministers, which oversees the ECtHR's judgments, has agreed to defer further discussion of the UK's implementation until September 2015.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “The government has always been clear that it believes prisoner voting is an issue that should ultimately be decided in the UK. However we welcome the Court's decision to refuse convicted prisoners costs or damages.”

 

Issue: 7640 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
back-to-top-scroll