Does Nick Clegg want prisoners to vote?

20 September 2010 by

Updated, Tue 21 Sep | It is being reported that Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, is looking to end the ban on prisoners voting in elections. If the law were to change, it would represent the end of a very long road for campaigners. However, they have been waiting since 2005 and may well be waiting for longer yet.

The Times apparently reported this morning (I haven’t confirmed this as it is behind a pay wall) that the deputy prime minister is backing plans for prisoner enfranchisement.

In the 2005 decision of Hirst No 2, the European Court held that Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which prevents prisoners from voting, is in breach of the electoral right under Article 1 of Protocol 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgment has not yet been implemented in the UK (see our post).

Nick Clegg’s opinion may be key in this instance, as the Guardian reports that the “Cabinet Office confirmed today that responsibility for prisoners’ voting rights was moved in July from Ken Clarke’s justice ministry to the office of the deputy prime minister, which is in charge of electoral reform.”

Last week the Council of Europe, which monitors compliance of European Court of Human Rights judgments, said it “deeply regretted” that despite the Committee’s calls to the United Kingdom over the years to implement the judgment, “the risk of repetitive applications to the European Court has materialised“. It also regretted that “no tangible and concrete information” had been presented by the UK as to how it was planning on implementing the judgment. The Committee also adopted a first interim resolution in December 2009, which basically said the same thing.

Interestingly, the court has now received 1,340 applications with a view to adopting the pilot judgment procedure. The PJP is a new method of dealing with large groups of identical cases that derive from the same underlying problem. The court can decide to select one or more of a group of similar applications for priority treatment.

In dealing with the selected case, it will seek to achieve a solution that extends beyond the particular case or cases so as to cover all similar cases raising the same issue; a paragraph can be added under Article 46 of the Convention which may address in broad terms what should be done to implement the judgment. In this sense, the judgment goes beyond simply finding a violation. This could ultimately cost the UK a lot of money in compensation payments, although it is of note that the court has did not award compensation in Hirst or the more recent case of Frodl v Austria,

The coalition government will be wary of the European Court of Human Rights’ recently acquired new powers to punish intransigent states. But in reality, little has changed. The new government has made no strong commitment yet to implementing the European Court of Rights judgment. The Council of Europe will look at the issue again by December 2010, at which point it may decide to sanction the UK. But as things stand, campaigners may have to wait a little longer.

Update: The prime minister’s press secretary poured cold water over the issue yesterday, sayingthere were a number of court cases, including one currently being considered by the European Court of Human Rights. In considering this issue we would have to take into account what the court said”. This is a slightly odd response, given that the European Court of Human Rights ruled clearly in Hirst No 2 (see above) 5 years ago. Any further hearings on the issue are only likely to come to the same conclusion. The press secretary went on to say “a lot of people in the country would find it difficult to understand the argument that prisoners deserved the right to vote.”

Return to home page or read more:

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

1 comment;


  1. John Hirst says:

    ”Cabinet Office confirmed today that responsibility for prisoners’ voting rights was moved in July from Ken Clarke’s justice ministry to the office of the deputy prime minister, which is in charge of electoral reform.”

    As far as the law is concerned, Ken Clarke is legally responsible for ensuring that all citizens (including prisoners) have their human rights under the Convention guaranteed.

    Make no mistake, the Association of Prisoners is in no mood for the game to shift from political football to political ping pong…

Comments are closed.

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 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 Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine 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: