Prisoners Votes Flashcards
UK history of prisoners votes
Prisoners have been disenfranchised since the 19th c
Prisoners votes in Europe
Majority of European Countries have no disenfranchisement of prisoners
Expt:
- Armenia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Russia
s. 3 Representation of the People Act 1983
A convicted person during the time that he is detained… is legally incapable of voting.
Hirst v UK
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.
Hodgeson and Roach
- ECHR has retreated from Hirst
- H and R critical of this approach
- mainly to keep the UK in the ECHR
Greens and MT v UK
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.
Government response to Greens and MT judgement
David Cameron: ‘makes me physically ill’ (2010)
Parliament voted in opposition of prisoners votes (324 - 22)
Daily Telegraph: We must defy Strasbourg
UK Gov Arguments
- 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.
Firth and Others v UK
Prisoners who could not vote in the European Parliament elections:
Court: same as Greens and MT but no compensation given
McHugh v UK
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.
Frodl v Austria
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.
Scoppola (No. 3) v Italy
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
Soyler v Turkey
There was a violation of Art 3
- indiscriminate deprivation of the right to vote
Anchugov v Russia
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)
Murat v Turkey
Violation of Art. 3
- Applicant’s deprivation of voting rights had not ended when he was conditionally released.
Kulinski v Bulgaria
Violation of Art. 3
- ECHR confirmed that indiscriminate restriction of voting rights for prisoners was a violation.
Smith v Scott
Issued a declaration of incompatibility under the HRA s. 4
R (Chester) v SS Justice
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
Moohand v Lord Advocate
Art. 3 does not apply to referenda (Scottish)
- prisoners could not vote
Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Draft Bill 2013
Recommended the government bring fourth a bill that allowed voting for prisoners serving 12 months or less.
- gov’t rejected this.
Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers.
Called upon the UK Gov’t to introduce a Bill to Parliament to respond to Hirst and other cases concerning prisoners rights.
Hodgeson and Roach 2017
UK’s hostility to the ECHR
- resulted in a stalemate
ECHR
- leading to an arbitrary solution, ‘pick a number, any number’.
Compromise in 2017
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.
