Evidence to Parliament on prisoner voting

30 October 2013 by

Screen Shot 2013-10-30 at 13.32.48This morning Joshua Rozenberg and I gave evidence the Joint Select Committee on the Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill. You can watch our evidence session here – we are on from 10:34:30.

It was an interesting experience. There is clearly a range of views on the committee, to say the least. It will be fascinating to see what happens next – it is already almost a year since the draft bill was published and, as Joshua Rozenberg said, it seems quite possible that this issue will not be resolved one way or the other before the 2015 General Election, which is only 18 months away.

Perhaps predictably (I was, after all, complaining about other people’s mistakes), I got something wrong in my evidence. Abu Qatada did (contrary to what I said) get damages from the European Court of Human Rights in A&Ors. I think he was the fifth applicant (it is not clear from the judgment) and received €3,400. The human rights damages story  I was referring to in that part of my evidence, and the problems with how it was reported, is described here.

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

Related posts


  1. Tim says:

    “it seems quite possible that this issue will not be resolved one way or the other before the 2015 General Election, which is only 18 months away.”

    I thought it had already been resolved in Hirst v UK (no2), which is a final judgment, not some sort of opinion which the human-rights abusing UK can ignore.

    BTW I notice that Parliament is still breaking the Equality Act as well by failing to provide BSL and subtitles for Deaf people.

  2. Theo Hopkins says:

    I have been watching Adam’s evidence on the press.

    At the end you say…
    Don’t have some sort of prisoner voting.

    What about Turkey?

    And Mr Ahmet Atahür Söyler?

    Wasn’t there a blanket ban on prisoner voting in Turkey, or was the case more complex?


    1. Ruvi Ziegler says:

      According to the judgment: in Turkey, disenfranchisement was an automatic consequence derived from the statute, and was therefore not left to the discretion or supervision of a judge. Moreover, such a measure was indiscriminate in its application as it did not take into account the nature or gravity of
      the offence, the length of the prison sentence or the prisoner’s individual conduct or circumstances.
      The court disagreed with the Turkish Government’s argument that the current legal framework adequately protected convicted prisoners’ voting rights as it limited the scope of the ban to those who had intentionally committed an offence, thus taking into account the nature of the offence. Hence, an ‘intention’ element exists under Turkish legislation but not under e.g. ROPA. I would agree (as did Strasbourg) that this is nonetheless blanket and so would fit the list above.

      1. Theo Hopkins says:

        @ Ruvi

        Thanks for this.


  3. Simon Carne says:

    You should have adopted the approach taken by the central witness who preceded you. I missed some of his evidence, but little that I heard seemed clear. So, no way of knowing if he was right or wrong.

    But Shock of the Day was hearing Joshua Rozenberg declare that Strasbourg and Luxembourg are two different places and neither is in the Netherlands. Do you think he will be forced to retract that?

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.




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.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights 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 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries 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 sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: