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?

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.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas 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 diplomatic relations 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 hague convention Harry Dunn 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 procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee 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 The Round Up 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 Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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: