The claimants said that restrictions within the constitution of Sark on who could sit in the Chief Pleas were incompatible with their human rights. The claimants variously owned property on Sark but had restricted rights to vote and stand.
Held: The rights given by the constitution to the unelected members of the Sark, did not infringe the claimants’ rights. There was a margin of appreciation under article 3 of protocol one, and given the historical systems on Sark, the appointments fell within that range of discretion. Even a wholly unelected chamber of parliament, such as the House of Lords was not incompatible.
Lord Collins summarised the significance of A3P1: ‘First, article 3 of the First Protocol enshrines a characteristic principle of an effective democracy . .
Second, although article 3 is phrased in terms of the obligation of the contracting states to hold elections which ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people rather than in terms of individual rights, article 3 guarantees individual rights, including the right to vote and the right to stand for election . .
Third, there is room for ‘implied limitations’ on the rights enshrined in article 3, and contracting states must be given a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere: MathieuMohin v Belgium (1988) 10 EHRR 1, para 52; Yumak v Turkey (2009) 48 EHRR 14, para 109(ii).
Fourth, the content of the obligation under article 3 varies in accordance with the historical and political factors specific to each state; . .
Fifth, article 3 is not (by contrast with some other Convention rights, such as those enumerated in articles 8 to 11) subject to a specific list of legitimate limitations, and the contracting states are therefore free to rely in general in justifying a limitation on aims which are proved to be compatible with the principle of the rule of law and the general objectives of the Convention: Yumak, para 109 (iii); Tanase v Moldova (Application No 7/08) (unreported) given 18 November 2008, para 105.
Sixth, limitations on the exercise of the right to vote or stand for election must be imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim, must not be arbitrary or disproportionate, and must not interfere with the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature: Yumak, para 109(iii) to (iv).
Seventh, such limitations must not curtail the rights under article 3 to such an extent as to impair their very essence, and deprive them of their effectiveness. They 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. Any departure from the principle of universal suffrage risks undermining the democratic validity of the legislature and the laws which it promulgates: MathieuMohin, para 52; Yumak, para 109(iv).’
Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Scott, Lord Brown, Lord Neuberger, Lord Collins
[2009] UKSC 9, [2009] 3 WLR 1270, [2010] 1 AC 464, [2010] HRLR 10, [2010] UKHRR 86, UKSC 2009/0119
Bailii, Times, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC, UKSCBLOG
European Convention on Human Rights P1a3
England and Wales
Citing:
at First Instance – Barclay and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Seigneur of Sark and Another Admn 18-Jun-2008
The claimants said that the the laws restricting residence and voting rights and oher constitutional arrangements on the Isle of Sark were in breach of European law, and human rights law.
Held: The claims failed. The composition of Chief Pleas . .
Appeal From – Barclay and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and others CA 2-Dec-2008
The claimant appealed against refusal of his challenge to the new constitutional law for Sark, and sought a declaration of incompatibility under the 1998 Act. He said that by restricting the people who could stand for election, a free democracy had . .
Cited – Mathieu Mohin and Clerfayt v Belgium ECHR 2-Mar-1987
(Plenary Court) The court described and approved the way in which an ‘institutional’ right to vote had developed into ‘subjective rights of participation – the ‘right to vote’ and the ‘right to stand for election’.’ It described the ambit of Article . .
Cited – Yumak And Sadak v Turkey ECHR 8-Jul-2008
. .
Cited – McGonnell v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Feb-2000
The applicant owned land in the parish of St Martin’s in Guernsey. He made a number of applications for planning permission for residential use, but they were all rejected. In about 1986 he moved into a converted packing shed on his land. In 1988 a . .
Cited – Zdanoka v Latvia ECHR 16-Mar-2006
(Grand Chamber) The applicant alleged that her disqualification from standing for election to the Latvian Parliament and to municipal elections infringed her rights as guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and Articles 10 and . .
Cited – Tanase And Chirtoaca v Moldova ECHR 18-Nov-2008
The applicants challenged a law which prevented them standing as candidates in elections. . .
Cited – Zdanoka v Latvia ECHR 16-Mar-2006
(Grand Chamber) The applicant alleged that her disqualification from standing for election to the Latvian Parliament and to municipal elections infringed her rights as guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and Articles 10 and . .
Cited by:
Cited – Chester, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 16-Oct-2013
The two applicants were serving life sentences for murder. Each sought damages for the unlawful withdrawal of their rights to vote in elections, and the failure of the British parliament to take steps to comply with the judgment.
Held: The . .
Cited – Barclay and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
Constitutional Status of Chanel Islands considered
The Court was asked as to the role, if any, of the courts of England and Wales (including the Supreme Court) in the legislative process of one of the Channel Islands. It raised fundamental questions about the constitutional relationship between the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Constitutional, Human Rights
Leading Case
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.381641