Feature | Barred voters and the right to compensation under human rights law

9 May 2010 by

With possibly thousands of people prevented from voting in the 2010 General Election, can those who were locked out claim for compensation for breach of their human rights, and how much are they likely to receive?

The legal basis: Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the European Convention on Human Rights, the duty on States to hold free and fair elections, has been receiving more than its usual share of attention. Under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right. Under Section 7, a person may bring proceedings against a public authority which has acted unlawfully. One of the potential remedies is compensation.

How many: It appears that thousands of voters may have been prevented from voting as polling stations were unable to handle the amount of people who arrived in the last few hours before voting closed at 10pm. For example, The Guardian reports that “In Chester more than 600 people were unable to vote because the electoral list had not been updated and Labour won on a majority of 549“and in Hackney “The council estimated that 270 voters were turned away at four polling stations in the south of the borough.” In Sheffield Hallam “students tried to prevent ballot boxes being taken to the count after up to 500 voters were turned away”.

How much: We posted on Friday on an article by Lord Pannick, a human rights barrister, in which he said that prisoners denied the right to vote (a separate but certainly comparable issue to those who were turned away) may be entitled to awards “in the region of £750 and possibly more”. Geoffrey Robertson QC, also a well known human rights barrister, told the BBC that spurned voters may be entitled to “at least £750”.

However, it is not clear where either lawyer derived the £750 figure from. It may well be an estimation based on their experiences in the European Court of Human Rights. It is also possible that the latter read the former’s article on prisoner disenfranchisement. On examination of the case law, it is difficult to say how much, if anything, non-voters will be entitled to.

UK and European case law

The UK Courts have generally been reluctant to meddle in the UK electoral system, even in light of strong statements by the European Court on Human Rights on particular issues involving the electoral system. For example, in Chester, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor [2009] EWHC 2923, a prisoner claimed that his rights had been breached as prisoners in the UK are barred from voting in elections. Mr Justice Burton said “I remain of the opinion that the Court is ill-equipped… to decide this issue of social policy, and certainly ill-equipped to legislate and provide for the consequences of any view, plain and obvious or otherwise, as to which category of prisoners ought to be enfranchised as a result of the removal of the absolute ban.”

By contrast, successful claims against States for failing to provide fair elections are fairly common in the European Court. However, that court does not usually provide specific compensation for the breach of human rights. This is because many of the cases involve defective electoral systems (for example, prisoners being unable to vote) rather than procedural errors, and as such the Court has generally considered that it is enough for the claimant that the State would now be obligated to change the system. For example, in Georgian Labour Party v Georgia, at para 155 the Court said:

The Court does not rule out that the applicant party, as a legal entity (see Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others, cited above, § 102, and Kommersant Moldovy v. Moldova, no. 41827/02, § 52, 9 January 2007), might have suffered some non-pecuniary damage on account of the disfranchisement of the Khulo and Kobuleti voters. However, the Court considers that the nature of the violation found, namely the arbitrary departure from the principle of universal suffrage, constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the breach of the applicant party’s right to stand for election under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1

The best known case on disenfranchisement in the UK context remains Hirst v The United Kingdom (Application no. 74025/01, 6 October 2005 – see our comment). In that case, the applicant, a convicted prisoner who was denied the right to vote, claimed £5,000 for suffering and distress caused by the violation. However, the Court declined to make such an award as the claimant would be provided with “just satisfaction” for the breach of his rights once the UK Government implemented measures which allowed prisoners to vote. Ironically, Mr Hirst is still waiting for that just satisfaction as the UK have continued to bar prisoners from voting.

The most recent judgment on the issue was the case of Frodl v Austria (Application no. 20201/04, 8 April 2010 – see our post on that case). The Court observed that “while this might not be obvious from its wording, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 enshrines a characteristic principle of an effective democracy and is accordingly of prime importance in the Convention system”. However, since no claim for damage was made, the Court awarded no compensation (see para 38 of the judgment).

Will there be compensation and if so, how much?

The cases referred to above concerned the controversial issue of prisoner disenfranchisement, where the UK courts have been unwilling to meddle in an issue which Parliament has clearly chosen to leave unresolved.

On the face of it, the cases of people barred from voting due to simple administrative incompetence should be much more straightforward, as they do not require any major changes in the electoral system in order to be remedied. Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, has already said that the problem “shows a lack of foresight and preparation”, so it seems unlikely that voters will be left without a remedy, and that may come in the form of compensation probably by way of an out of court settlement.

However, how much that will be is by no means clear, and it may be difficult to prove in practice that a person was prevented from voting as a direct result of administrative difficulties. For example, can it reasonably be said that it was the State’s fault that a person who arrived to vote at 9:55pm was unable to vote? What about people who spoke to relatives and friends at 9:30pm and were told it wasn’t worth trying as there were long queues?

Furthermore,  barred voters may argue that compensation alone is not enough and that they expect the ballots to be held again. Given that some of the affected seats were won by a narrow margin, this argument may have some force.

Read more:

  • The Electoral Commission’s online complaint form
  • BBC Q&A, including how a voter might make a legal challenge to election results (nb. this might cost £5,000)

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: