Prisoners Votes

Question 1

UK history of prisoners votes

Answer 1

Prisoners have been disenfranchised since the 19th c

Question 2

Prisoners votes in Europe

Answer 2

Majority of European Countries have no disenfranchisement of prisoners
Expt:
- Armenia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Russia

Question 3

s. 3 Representation of the People Act 1983

Answer 3

A convicted person during the time that he is detained… is legally incapable of voting.

Question 4

Hirst v UK

Answer 4

Sentenced to life imprisonment for manslaughter
UK Court: prohibition falls within the UK’s margin of appreciation - the law is proportionate.
ECHR: UK blanket ban of prisoner voting was a breach of Art. 3 (right to free and fair elections) - decision to disenfranchise should be taken by a judge.

Question 5

Hodgeson and Roach

Answer 5

• ECHR has retreated from Hirst
• H and R critical of this approach
• mainly to keep the UK in the ECHR

Question 6

Greens and MT v UK

Answer 6

Violation of Art. 3 due to UK gov’t failure to implement the decision in Hirst - they had to do so in 6 months
- court implied a threat that thousands could be awarded damages.

Question 7

Government response to Greens and MT judgement

Answer 7

David Cameron: ‘makes me physically ill’ (2010)
Parliament voted in opposition of prisoners votes (324 - 22)
Daily Telegraph: We must defy Strasbourg

Question 8

UK Gov Arguments

Answer 8

• punishment of prisoners to ensure civic responsibility
• crime is a breach of a social contract and so removed the entitlement of ‘moral authority’ to participate in the democratic process.

Question 9

Firth and Others v UK

Answer 9

Prisoners who could not vote in the European Parliament elections:
Court: same as Greens and MT but no compensation given

Question 10

McHugh v UK

Answer 10

Court concluded there had been a violation fo Art 3 because their case was identical to previous voting cases and the relevant legislation had not been amended.
- no compensation or costs awarded.

Question 11

Frodl v Austria

Answer 11

ECHR - decisions of prisoners voting rights should be taken by a judge taking into account the circumstances fo the case.
- must be a link between the offence and democratic institutions.

Question 12

Scoppola (No. 3) v Italy

Answer 12

No violation of Art 3.
Italian law: only prisoners convicted of certain offences against the state, or sentenced to at least 3 years imprisonment, lost the right to vote.
- no indiscriminate measure of the kind in Hirst

Question 13

Soyler v Turkey

Answer 13

There was a violation of Art 3

- indiscriminate deprivation of the right to vote

Question 14

Anchugov v Russia

Answer 14

Violation of Art 3

• indiscriminate deprivation of the right to vote
• ECHR rejected the fact that this was part of the Russian constitution rather than an act of Parliament (as in the UK)

Question 15

Murat v Turkey

Answer 15

Violation of Art. 3

- Applicant’s deprivation of voting rights had not ended when he was conditionally released.

Question 16

Kulinski v Bulgaria

Answer 16

Violation of Art. 3

- ECHR confirmed that indiscriminate restriction of voting rights for prisoners was a violation.

Question 17

Smith v Scott

Answer 17

Issued a declaration of incompatibility under the HRA s. 4

Question 18

R (Chester) v SS Justice

Answer 18

Supreme court refused to issues a s. 4 HRA declaration fo incompatibility.
- issue of disenfranchisement was not a fundamental part of UK as to require that ECHR jurisprudence be followed

Question 19

Moohand v Lord Advocate

Answer 19

Art. 3 does not apply to referenda (Scottish)

- prisoners could not vote

Question 20

Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Draft Bill 2013

Answer 20

Recommended the government bring fourth a bill that allowed voting for prisoners serving 12 months or less.
- gov’t rejected this.

Question 21

Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers.

Answer 21

Called upon the UK Gov’t to introduce a Bill to Parliament to respond to Hirst and other cases concerning prisoners rights.

Question 22

Hodgeson and Roach 2017

Answer 22

UK’s hostility to the ECHR
- resulted in a stalemate
ECHR
- leading to an arbitrary solution, ‘pick a number, any number’.

Question 23

Compromise in 2017

Answer 23

Prisoners serving less than 1 year released on temporary license can vote.
- this has extended voting rights to 100 people
Done through administrative changes not statutory ones
- The Rep of People Act has not been amended.