Austrian prisoner vote decision now final, implications for UK

4 November 2010 by

Updated | The dust has hardly settled on the government’s decision to allow prisoners to vote when, with uncanny timing, the European Court of Human Rights has denied the Austrian government permission to appeal in a similar case involving prisoners’ voting rights.

The Strasbourg court has notified Austria that its request for referral of the case of Frodl v Austria to the Grand Chamber has been rejected. This is likely to have a significant impact on the UK’s implementation of the prisoner voting system, as the court in Frodl effectively ruled that the disenfranchisement of prisoners could only happen on rare occasions: namely, where a prisoner was detained as a result of the abuse of a public position or a threat to undermine the rule of law or democratic foundations. As I said in Monday’s post:

It is still open to the government to impose limits on what kind of prisoners can and cannot vote, but in light of the recent case of Frodl v Austria, the categories of prisoners whose vote can legitimately be taken away may be fairly limited. In that case the court said that any restriction on voting rights must be proportionate to the end pursued, and “must reflect, or not run counter to, the concern to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of an electoral procedure aimed at identifying the will of the people through universal suffrage.

A prisoner’s right to vote could in some cases be taken away, but only in the limited scenario where a prisoner was detained as a result of the abuse of a public position or a threat to undermine the rule of law or democratic foundations. In other words, there needs to be a “direct link between the facts on which a conviction is based and the sanction of disenfranchisement“. In light of Frodl, it seems unlikely that the government will be able to restrict voting rights to those who have committed less serious offences.

The reaction to the government’s long-delayed decision on prisoner voting has been interesting to see. It has reignited (as if it ever went away) the interesting and important debate on the rightful place of Europe in setting our laws. The now-final decision in Frodl means that the government will find it hard to limit the rights of prisoners to vote in any significant way, and this will fuel the debate further.

Carl Gardner at the Head of Legal Blog has argued that the decision in Frodl is “breathtaking stuff” and that the court has gone “way beyond its supervisory role, and has got into detailed policy making“.

But, arguably, all the court is doing is following its own logic to its natural conclusion. If voting is a basic right and a cornerstone of democracy, as was the reasoning in Hirst, and prisoners fall within that basic protection, then only exceptional circumstances will justify taking that right away from them. Put another way, the right to vote cannot become a standard bolt-on for criminal punishment, as it is too fundamental to the operation of a democratic society. It should be remembered that prisoners are, by virtue of being in prison, already stripped of many of their most basic rights to privacy, family life, enjoyment of property, liberty and education. And until someone can identify how committing a serious crime is ‘directly linked’ (in the sense meant by the court in Frodl and Hirst) to the withdrawal of a person’s democratic rights, it is hard to see how the conclusion in Frodl could have been any different.

Thank you to John Hirst for the tip-off.

Update, 4 Nov 2010 – Sean Humber, of Leigh Day & Co Solicitors, is acting for more than 550 serving prisoners seeking a declaration from the European Court of Human Rights that the government’s failure to allow them to vote at the last general election entitles them to compensation. He has written an article on Guardian.co.uk. He says:

… the simple fact remains that whatever the government now does, serving prisoners, including our clients, were unlawfully prevented from voting at the recent general election. As a result, they are entitled to compensation for this breach of their human rights.

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

Related posts

1 comment;


  1. John Hirst says:

    I think David Cameron has firmly put his foot in his mouth when he said he would limit the vote. Nothing unusual for a politician to be so wide of the mark. I would like to know how much the government has spent on advisers trying to get around the Hirst v UK (No2) judgment? I would have told them to save the taxpayers money because I spent 12-15 years making sure that there were no legal loopholes.

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 care homes 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 coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid 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 Facial Recognition 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 ouster clauses 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 prosecutions 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 Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum 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: